Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

FIFE CHILD CARE INQUIRY

Ordered,

That there be laid before the House a Return of the Report of the Inquiry by Sheriff Kearney (together with extracts from that Report), set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Children Act 1975, into the child care policies in Fife. —[M.r. Lang.]

ORKNEY INQUIRY

Ordered,

That there be laid before the House a Return of the Report of the Inquiry by Lord Clyde (together with extracts from that Report), set up by the Secretary of State for Scotland under the Children Act 1975 and the Police (Scotland) Act 1967, into the removal of children from Orkney to a place of safety in February 1991.—[Mr. Lang.]

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE

European Fighter Aircraft

Mr. Page: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made over the evaluation of the European fighter aircraft.

Mr. Dykes: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on developments in the post-prototype additional studies for the revised EFA project.

Dr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the European fighter aircraft project.

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): In August the four Governments concerned commissioned studies into ways of reducing the costs of the EFA programme; we also agreed to review the operational requirement in the light of recent changes in the international security situation. The first of these studies has now reported. I am pleased to say that it shows that the production costs can be reduced by up to 20 per cent. while still meeting the military requirement in full; that further savings, up to 30 per cent., shows also possible; and that the EFA offers better value for money than the seven alternative designs which were considered.

Mr. Page: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that encouraging reply. As important as the European fighter aircraft is, does he agree that it is even more important that the United Kingdom retains its design and build capacity for not only the EFA but EFAs of the

future, unless this country wants to be reliant upon foreign supply—probably a monopoly—with all the price and cost implications that that would mean?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. If we were to purchase our fighter requirements from overseas rather than continue with the British design and British manufacture, that would make it difficult and complicate the possibility at any future date of fighter aircraft being designed and manufactured in this country.

Mr. Dykes: I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for that answer, which was extremely considered and careful. Will he confirm that what he said in his main and supplementary answers confirms conclusively that this vital and indispensable high-technology defence project must go ahead on the basis of the revised figures and that it will be possible to continue the project without our partners?

Mr. Rifkind: I very much hope that it will be possible to continue with all four countries participating in the programme. Both the Italian and Spanish Defence Ministers have indicated that they are impressed by the. savings that have been identified by the report. I recall that Mr. Volker Rũhe, the German Defence Minister, said on 21 September that the new fighter aircraft should cost not more than DM90 million. I hope that he will be encouraged to know that the work that has now been done identifies that that target can be achieved. I hope that, on that basis, Germany also should feel able to agree to continue with the project.

Dr. Strang: Does the Secretary of State accept that almost all the developing technologies that will feature in tomorrow's aerospace business, both military and civil, are part and parcel of the EFA development programme? Although many of us would like to see the companies that are involved in the EFA programme diversify more into civil products, is he aware that the short-term reality is that the continuation of the EFA programme is crucial to the future of our aerospace industry, which is of world class and second only to the United States in turnover?

Mr. Rifkind: That is the case. The arguments for the EFA programme must depend primarily on the United Kingdom's defence requirements, but the industrial implications are also significant. At the height of production about 28,000 jobs in the United Kingdom would be related to the EFA project and about 60,000 throughout Europe.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: May I offer my support to the Secretary of State and congratulations on the way in which he has dealt with this issue, especially in the past two or three days when the provocations must have seemed nothing if not extreme? Can he confirm that in the event of' the project's proceeding in such a way that individual countries could, as it were, choose their own form of EFA programme, he is satisfied that the United Kingdom would acquire an aircraft adequate to meet all exigencies and provide a proper basis for any operations in which the Royal Air Force might find itself engaged?

Mr. Rifkind: Most of the work that has been done so far has involved the Rolls-Royce engines and the airframe. The technical study that has now been completed has identified that, even on the basis of current strategic requirements, savings of up to 20 per cent. could be


achieved with the EFA programme. If we wish to go beyond that and reduce our requirement in terms of the components of the EFA programme—for example, in-flight refuelling or other specific qualities—savings of up to 30 per cent. could be made.

Mr. Bill Walker: When my right hon. and learned Friend examines the EFA programme, will he never lose sight of the fact that the RAF and its pilots of the future must never be committed to battlefield conditions without at least enjoying parity in terms of the aircraft that are likely to oppose them? With Soviet air force equipment finding its way around the world, there is every likelihood that RAF pilots may come up against some of the most sophisticated of former Soviet aircraft.

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, I am conscious of the fact that twice in the past 10 years, unlike some European countries, our pilots have been called upon to use their fighter aircraft in actual combat—in the Falklands and the Gulf. We must be certain therefore that the aircraft available to our pilots are at least as good as those of any potential aggressor. We must also be conscious of the fact that Russia not only possesses sophisticated aircraft but has made it clear that it is willing to export them—including to unstable regimes in the middle east and elsewhere.

Dr. David Clark: When does the Secretary of State expect to receive the review by the four national chiefs of staff of the EFA's military requirements? When will the four Governments concerned subsequently be able to announce that the EFA programme will go ahead—which we on these Benches believe is essential for Britain's military and industrial requirements?

Mr. Rifkind: We expect to receive the chiefs of staff report in three or four weeks. It is likely that a meeting of the four Defence Ministers will be held early in December, but it is not possible to say now whether they will reach a conclusion. I remind the House that the original timetable did not envisage production decisions until the spring of 1993. Matters were brought forward because of the German budgetary problems that were raised in the German Parliament earlier this year. There is still time available, without interfering with the fundamental programme.

Defence Research Establishments

Mr. Adley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the defence research establishments.

The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Mr. Jonathan Aitken): As part of our continuing drive for improved value for money, the Defence Research Agency has made a series of proposals to rationalise its operations and reduce costs. They were set out in a consultative document published last month and we expect to reach decisions later this year.

Mr. Adley: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer and for his diligence and courtesy in taking so much trouble to listen to my constituents' point of view. Does he acknowledge that the DRA's bridge-building facility at Christchurch is unique? The breadth of assumptions in the document to which he referred raise grave doubts—which I share—that any savings will be made by moving the

expensive and irreplaceable capital equipment at Christchurch elsewhere? Will my hon. Friend confirm that the consultation will be genuine, and that my constituents will be given a further opportunity to make their views known to him?

Mr. Aitken: I was glad to visit the Christchurch site with my hon. Friend earlier this year, and I pay tribute to the excellence of the professional skills that its staff have consistently shown. Unfortunately, the site is under-utilised and over-large, and considerable savings have been identified by the DRA's chief executive. I confirm that the consultation exercise is genuine and that I will be pleased to learn the views of my hon. Friend and of his constituents when they see me on 4 November.

Mr. Flynn: Is the Minister aware that the defence research establishment at Aberporth in Dyfed has been used to test fire the Chilean Government's Rayo multiple-launch rocket system? Chile has made it clear that it is willing to sell that weapon to any country in the world that can afford it. Does that not make a nonsense of non-proliferation and of our attempts to prevent deadly weapons falling into the hands of third world and unstable Governments?

Mr. Aitken: It is the British Defence Research Agency, not the Chilean Defence Research Agency, and I do not think that the hon. Gentleman's comments are correct.

Mr. Ian Bruce: I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for also seeing a delegation of my constituents about DRA jobs. Can my hon. Friend say what capital repayment terms or payback period he would expect from moving people around? He will know from his days in private industry that it looks for a two to three-year payback. The Treasury seems to look for something like a 20-year payback, and many of the agency's proposals envisage something like a 10-year payback.

Mr. Aitken: The payback arrangements are governed by the normal Treasury rules, which may provide for a period of up to 25 years. When my hon. Friend visits me with his delegation, I shall certainly listen to the points about repayment that I understand that he wishes to make.

Diversification

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had on the establishment of an arms diversification programme.

Mr. Bill Michie: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding the establishment of a defence diversification agency.

Mr. Aitken: We exchange views with industry on a wide range of matters, and we participate in the Department of Trade and Industry's regional seminars to help companies to adapt to changing market conditions. However, we have no plans to establish a defence diversification agency.

Mr. Banks: It would have been rather more courteous of the Minister to advise his questioners of the linking of questions 3 and 4.
That was a stunningly complacent reply, even from this politically paralysed Government. Why should defence workers have to pay the price of the peace dividend with their jobs? Does not the Minister recognise that arms


conversion schemes are vital to both eastern and western Europe? They are vital to eastern Europe if we are to stop it from sliding into political and economic chaos; they are vital to the west—especially this country—if we are not to put defence workers on the dole. When will the Minister stop fighting the battles of yesterday, and start looking for the opportunities presented by tomorrow?

Mr. Aitken: It is the hon. Gentleman who is fighting the battles of yesterday, and they are battles that have always been lost. If he recollects the days of quangos such as the National Enterprise Board, he will realise that Government attempts to second-guess the elements to which industry should give priority—in connection with any sort of conversion or new policy—usually end with the Government helping to pick losers rather than winners.

Mr. Bill Michie: May I echo the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks)? If the Government cannot at least have the competence and courtesy to inform us when two questions are linked, there is not much hope of their running the country properly.
If the Government can act so swiftly to destroy 30,000 mining jobs, why can they not act equally swiftly to ensure that jobs are created in the engineering and defence industries to prevent further unemployment?

Mr. Aitken: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) did not receive prior notification of the linking of the two questions—although I hardly think that it is an error of quite the magnitude that they have suggested.
The Government are spending £9 billion a year on the equipment programme. By any standards, that figure makes the Ministry of Defence British industry's biggest customer. Ours is a strong and credible industrial strategy, and—despite hard times—many companies are still managing to make good products and good profits

Mr. Batiste: Is my hon. Friend aware that the last thing that successful defence contractors want is to be told by the Government how to run their businesses? What they need is good information about the nature of the Government's long-term plans, and plenty of time in which to make any adjustments that may prove essential to the planning of their businesses. Will my hon. Friend commit himself and the Government to the maintaining of good communications with the defence contractors, to help them to make long-term plans?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend has made a good point. We are renewing our efforts to establish a strong and open dialogue with industry. In recent weeks, conferences such as the chief of defence procurement's suppliers' conference and the Seafacts '92 conference have provided excellent information about advance intentions in regard to defence spending, and about the current trends. All the industrialists whom I have met have been very satisfied with the amount of information that is now being provided. It has enabled them to make new plans in connection with diversification and other subjects.

Mr. Burns: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the past few months, there have been substantial job losses at the GEC—Marconi companies in Chelmsford, which rely heavily on defence contracts? May I have an assurance

that, where it is feasible, the British Government will place their contracts with British companies to protect British jobs?

Mr. Aitken: I can already tell my hon. Friend that more than 90 per cent. of Britain's £9 billion equipment budget is spent with British companies. That is a good record. If we were to seek deliberately to exclude foreign companies from business, we should in turn be excluded from the foreign export markets in which we are so remarkably successful. A balance must be struck, but I share entirely the sentiment expressed by my hon. Friend.

Mr. Foulkes: All the Minister has done is to repeat what was said in June. Have the Government not learnt from the debacle over coal that market forces are not very good at determining an industrial strategy? If the peace dividend is to result in new jobs and new wealth for this country instead of more and more unemployment, the Government need to involve the unions and industry in devising an industrial strategy to replace defence jobs. The best way to do that is to set up a defence diversification agency.

Mr. Aitken: All that the hon. Gentleman is doing is to repeat the same old themes that his party produced at the time of the groundnut scheme and of the National Enterprise Board. If he thinks that politicians can do a good job by telling companies such as GEC how to diversify, he needs to think again.

Defence Equipment

Mr. David Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many jobs in the United Kingdom are dependent on defence equipment expenditure.

Mr. Aitken: We estimate that about 350,000 jobs in the United Kingdom are dependent on defence equipment expenditure, including those dependent on defence sales overseas.

Mr. Martin: I know that my hon. Friend does not need to be reminded yet again by me of the importance of defence expenditure to Portsmouth, so can he assure me that he will continue to remind the public as well as the defence industry that any alternative policy is one of swingeing cuts in defence expenditure, such as was proposed and passed yet again at the Labour party conference this year, that the Liberals are little better and that that policy is very much against the defence interests of this country?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is right, as he represents a Portsmouth constituency, to remind us of the extraordinary resolutions passed at this year's Labour party conference. If those resolutions, which call for devastating defence cuts, were ever to be translated into political reality, they would mean the disappearance of at least a quarter of our armed forces and the redundancy of at least 100,000 workers in defence industries. Only this Government have a strong and credible policy for Britain's defences.

Ms. Rachel Squire: Is the Minister aware that the largest industrial complex in Scotland is Rosyth royal dockyard? Is he in particular aware that 4,200 direct jobs and many hundreds more indirect jobs depend upon the assurances that the Government and their Ministers have


given since 1985? In particular, will he remind the present Chancellor of the Exchequer of what he said in 1985: that the Government's commitment to Rosyth was clear from the massive investment that they were making in the dockyard to carry out the Trident refit? Will the Minister therefore give Rosyth the assurance of a future and its work force the assurance of jobs for all of them?

Mr. Aitken: I am well aware of the concerns that the hon. Lady expresses. Both my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence and I have visited Rosyth and Devonport in recent weeks. No decision has yet been taken. Any press speculation and reports that have appeared are wrong. We are considering the matter carefully and we shall reach and announce a decision in due course.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: My hon. Friend will be aware that the German Defence Minister came to this country not many weeks ago to discuss the future of the EFA programme. In the light of the startlingly good progress that has been made in reducing the cost of this worthwhile aircraft, can my hon. Friend tell us what the reaction of the German Defence Minister has been to that progress?

Mr. Aitken: I should be unwise to second guess the reactions of the German Defence Minister, but I have no doubt that he has carefully and thoughtfully noted the fact that the new cost estimates are exactly in line with the requests that he made for a 30 per cent. reduction in the cost of the aircraft. I take considerable encouragement from the results that have been produced.

Mr. Wigley: Does the Minister accept that the expenditure to which he referred, which will generate 350,000 jobs and £9,000 million worth of expenditure, will have a considerable economic effect? Is he aware that more than 50 per cent. of that expenditure will be made in south-east England, but less than 2 per cent. in Wales? Is not that a hidden regional policy working against areas outside the south-east?

Mr. Aitken: I do not accept the hon. Gentleman's breakdown of the figures. My impression, without being able to check the figures, is that a much more substantial percentage of British defence spending goes to key aircraft factories, particularly in the north-west of England. I do not think that the imbalance is anything like as bad as he suggests. There is no regional policy in defence spending. We place our contracts on the basis of value for money and obtaining the best products at the best prices.

Mr. Streeter: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the all-important contract for maintenance work on the Trident boat, to which he has referred, will be placed on the basis of what is best for national security, cost effectiveness and value for money, and that, accordingly, it will be awarded to Devonport Management Ltd., on whose future many thousands of jobs in Plymouth depend?

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend is a forceful advocate of Devonport, just as the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire) is a forceful advocate of Rosyth. My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State and I are ensuring that we take a fair and even-handed approach to the problem, which I hope will result in a fair and just decision.

Dr. David Clark: On jobs and defence, does the Minister appreciate that Labour believes that there are overwhelming strategic demands for the retention of the naval dockyards at both Rosyth and Devonport? Will he assure the House that no decision will be made to close either of the yards on narrow, short-term financial and ideological calculations?

Mr. Aitken: I can certainly give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that we shall take the broadest strategic view, although value for money is a strong and important consideration. I assure him that the decision will be a fair and carefully considered one.

National Employers Liaison Committee

Mr. Brazier: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what progress has been made in the establishment of regional branches of the National Employers Liaison Committee; and what roles he perceives these as playing in the enhancement of the reserve forces.

The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. Archie Hamilton): Contact at local level between employers and the reserve forces is via the 14 regional, territorial, auxiliary and volunteer reserve associations, each of which has its own committee to deal with employer support.
Those regional and local contacts provide valuable opportunities for employers to learn more about the reserve forces by attending briefings and by visiting reserve forces training and for their executives to take part in special weekend exercises known as executive stretch.

Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the NELC on the remarkable job that it has done, on a relatively small budget, in attracting employers' support for the reserve forces? Does he agree that there is considerable scope for the NELC to keep alive the interest of the business community in defence issues in these difficult and dangerous times?

Mr. Hamilton: I acknowledge my hon. Friend's comments. We value our links with the NELC highly, and it is currently involved in discussions on the mix of the regular-reserve forces. I certainly support that, and agree that, as we may become more dependent on reserves, links with the NELC are very valuable indeed.

Army Manning and Record Offices

Mr. Bayley: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what proposals he has to conduct a comparison of the efficiency and cost effectiveness of the services provided by the Army's manning and record offices and regimental pay offices in York, and of other Army manning and record offices and regimental pay offices, before he decides about the siting of any integrated Army personnel centre outside London.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: A study is currently examining the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of establishing an integrated Army personnel centre outside London. That would involve the collocation of the adjutant general and military secretary's headquarters and their staff, with all the manning and record offices and regimental pay offices. The study is looking at the operation as a whole and does not entail a comparison of the relative efficiency of existing offices.

Mr. Bayley: When the Minister takes his decision, will he give due weight to the fact that already this year it has been announced that 1,200 Ministry of Defence civilian jobs in Harrogate will go, while 250 civilian jobs at the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers' workshop at Strensall have also gone? The losses come on top of a reduction from 9,500 to 5,500 in the number of Ministry of Defence civilian jobs in Yorkshire in the past decade.
Does the Minister accept that a decision to lose further civilian jobs at York will be met by anger and disbelief in a city with a proud military tradition and in a county that has contributed so much to the military over the centuries?

Mr. Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that we are studying proposals to collocate all the offices in one place. We are thinking in terms of about 1,500 employees in 200,000 sq. ft. of office space. We are considering a number of locations, including York. We have the advantage that if we locate the new office in a place where we already have an office, we shall have a core of workers who will help to establish the new, much bigger collocated offices. No decisions have yet been taken and we shall consider all locations around the country.

Mr. John Greenway: The closures of the Harrogate and Strensall Ministry of Defence facilities have been greeted with dismay. Many people who have served the Ministry of Defence and the armed forces well over many years are pinning their hopes on the relocation of the integrated personnel centre to the York area. If York is good enough as a centre for the Department for Education, for the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and for many other commercial firms, it should be good enough for the Ministry of Defence.

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that I have already made it clear to my hon. Friend that there is no prejudice against York. We are considering a number of other locations as well, as is only fair.

Mr. Loyden: What criteria does the Minister use when he makes such decisions? Does he take into account the level of unemployment in the area and does he give the necessary information to enable the trade unions to make an objective judgment about whether the Ministry is right or wrong?

Mr. Hamilton: The basic criterion we adopt is that of value for money. Of course, we taken into account the local conditions of unemployment, because that improves our chances of recruiting people locally to man the offices. There are many different considerations in the process. Once we come to a proposal, we put it to the trade unions. There is always a consultation period during which the trade unions can put forward their ideas about how they see us going forward.

Cambodia

Mr. Matthew Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will report on progress made by United Kingdom forces in the United Nations peacekeeping operation in Cambodia.

Mr. Rifkind: As part of the United Nations transitional authority in Cambodia, the United Kingdom has provided 38 military observers, 13 mine clearance training experts and 70 Royal Navy and Royal Marines personnel to act as

naval monitors. They are making a significant and high-quality contribution, in difficult and demanding circumstances, towards the success of the United Nations operation in Cambodia.

Mr. Banks: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that this is a further and very welcome example of the commitment of the United Nations throughout the world to achieving a major peacekeeping role?

Mr. Rifkind: Yes, my hon. Friend is correct. In 1991, there were only 11,500 United Nations troops deployed in peacekeeping operations. Today, there are more than 51,000. The United Kingdom and many other countries are performing a far more enhanced role in contributing towards helping to deal with countries with significant problems of instability or internal strife.

Ex-Service Men (Housing)

Mr. Paice: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has received regarding housing needs for redundant service men.

Mr. Archie Hamilton: My right hon. and learned Friend has received a number of representations regarding the housing needs of redundant service personnel.

Mr. Paice: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many local authorities, including South Cambridgeshire district council, do not believe that having been resident in married quarters in a district is sufficient contact with the area for the people concerned to be accepted on to the housing waiting list? As a result, when service men are being made redundant from bases in my constituency, they find themselves with nowhere to go. Will my right hon. Friend look again at the housing position, especially bearing in mind the fact that many of the bases have many vacant quarters on them, and find a way forward so we can ensure that service men who are being made redundant, many of whom have served in the Gulf, are not left homeless without anywhere to go?

Mr. Hamilton: Yes, although I hope that the situation is not as bad as my hon. Friend suggests. We are doing all that we can to make available such married quarters as we have to service men who are due to be made redundant, bearing in mind the fact that we always try to organise matters so that service men who are to be made redundant spend their last six months in the United Kingdom. We are using our married quarters for that purpose.

Mr. Eric Clarke: Is the Minister aware that, compared with the figure for the United Kingdom as a whole, a very large proportion of the Scottish population is involved in the armed forces, and that the problem of demobbed service men is therefore a serious one? My hon. Friend the Member for Motherwell, North (Dr. Reid) and I had a meeting with representatives of the CO Scottish Command at Glencorse barracks in my constituency, who proposed the formation of an organisation that could be funded by the Government to buy houses and take over Ministry of defence properties to provide rented accommodation for service men which they could eventually purchase. That could be a way forward. As those representatives said to us, the present demand for houses is only the tip of the iceberg.

Mr. Hamilton: We already make married quarters available for service men to buy at discounted prices. We are also making it possible for service men to part-purchase private properties and pay rent on the remainder. We are also reaching deals with housing associations, and are negotiating the transfer to housing associations of some 1,100 married quarters. We would keep a number of the allocations of those premises for ex-service men or service men who were about to leave. We have addressed the problem, and a lot of effort is being put into it.

Mr. Cormack: Does my right hon. Friend realise that he could solve the problem at a stroke if he would do the decent thing as regards the Staffordshire regiment, and have regard to the needs of the infantry? If he would think again about reprieving the Staffordshires and the Cheshires, we would not have so many redundant service men.

Mr. Hamilton: I do not quite follow my hon. Friend's logic when he says that if we did not amalgamate the Staffordshire and Cheshire regiments, we would have no redundancy problems. The fact is that we have made decisions about the amalgamations and there is no reason to believe that they will not go ahead.

Mr. Martlew: On 28 April the Minister gave the House an assurance that ex-personnel returning from Germany would be given accommodation for themselves and their families. Does that promise still stand, and is the Minister aware that many ex-service men will be unable to buy their own homes because they will come straight out of the armed forces on to the dole queue? What is needed is low-cost rental housing. What does the Minister propose to do to tackle that problem?

Mr. Hamilton: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on the occasion of his first contribution on defence matters from the Opposition Front Bench. I am sure that we shall be hearing from him in the future.
Let me go back over what I have said. It is not true that service men cannot purchase their own houses. Many can do so, because the serious amounts of redundancy money that they receive can go some way towards enabling them to purchase their own homes. In addition, the deals that we are doing with housing associations will make it possible for people to rent premises through those associations when they leave the services. We will keep a number of the allocations available.

Mr. Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way of solving the problem of housing redundant soldiers is to make fewer soldiers redundant, and that, given that the forces of reaction are gathering pace in Russia and that southern and south-eastern Europe are reverting to tribalism, this is not the time to pursue "Options for Change" with the vigour with which it has been pursued so far?

Mr. Hamilton: I hope that my hon. Friend will agree with me that one reason for our having large forces was that we were opposed by the massed forces of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw pact, both of which have now disintegrated. Given that the main strength opposing us had to some degree disappeared and had certainly been ameliorated, it was only right that we should look again at the level of defence expenditure that we were incurring.

Nuclear Weapons (Russia)

Mr. McFall: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with President Yeltsin regarding the dismantling of nuclear weapons in Russia and neighbouring states.

Mr. Rifkind: Following discussions between my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and President Yeltsin in January, we are proceeding with our plans to provide 20 nuclear weapons transport vehicles and 250 nuclear weapon containers to allow the Russian Government safely and securely to accelerate their dismantling of surplus nuclear warheads. Progress on this assistance will be reviewed during President Yeltsin's visit to the United Kingdom in November.

Mr. McFall: With Russia sliding into chaos, the need to control the 10,000 ballistic missiles on its soil is even more urgent. Given that the present rate of dismantling Russian weapons means that that will take 15 years, how many of the promised nuclear warhead containers have been constructed and how many have been delivered? Does the Secretary of State agree that unless we provide generous financial and technical assistance, we will undermine President Yeltsin in the same way that we undermined President Gorbachev? Is not a Marshall plan preferable to martial law?

Mr. Rifkind: All the containers are under construction and delivery will take place as soon as that is physically possible. The programme that we have already initiated is worth £30 million in that one area alone. That shows the seriousness with which we are seeking to assist President Yeltsin in the very important work that he is doing.

Mr. Rupert Allason: The Government's assistance to President Yeltsin in the dismantling of nuclear weapons must be welcomed and encouraged. Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that there is considerable anxiety nearer home about the future of nuclear submarines which are unused and in moth balls? Can he give the House any assurance about what will happen to those nuclear plants in the near future?

Mr. Rifkind: We have made an assessment of the number of conventional and nuclear submarines that the country requires. Obviously, some decisions still have to be taken with regard to the decommissioning of nuclear submarines in the longer term. That is also dependent on wider decisions which the Government are addressing at the moment.

Dr. Reid: Can the Secretary of State explain in what way he thinks that he is helping Russia's nuclear de-escalation or the political position of Boris Yeltsin when Britain is escalating its nuclear capacity in strategic ballistic missiles by 250 per cent. and at the same time absolutely refusing to respond to Boris Yeltsin's offer of a nuclear moratorium? Does he not realise that that undermines the process of nuclear de-escalation inside Russia and that it strengthens the forces of reaction in that country? Does he not also realise that unless he is prepared to show sufficient support and goodwill to the reform process in Russia, the sands of time for democracy in that country will run out all the more quickly?

Mr. Rifkind: The hon. Gentleman shows a total inability to understand the nuclear question. He is


obviously not aware that even in 10 years' time, when Russia will have completed the process of reducing its strategic nuclear warheads, it will still possess more than 3,000 strategic nuclear warheads and that will be six times as many as the United Kingdom will have when Trident is deployed.

Mr. Robert Banks: My right hon. and learned Friend will know the difficulties with dismantling nuclear weapons. Is he aware of the discussions that took place between members of the Russian Government and members of the—[interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Ministers cannot hear questions being put to them for all the noise in the House. Will the House come to order?

Mr. Banks: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware of the discussions that took place between members of the North Atlantic Assembly and representatives of the Russian Government and other eastern European Governments when it was suggested that a dismantling plant should be set up in Russia to be run and administered jointly between Russia, the United States and possibly ourselves? Will he look into that suggestion?

Mr. Rifkind: It is totally desirable to do what we can to assist Russia and its neighbours further in the process that they have implemented. It is encouraging that already all tactical nuclear weapons have been withdrawn from the other Republics of the Commonwealth of Independent States into Russia. We will certainly look constructively at any proposals dealing with the dismantling of existing nuclear weapons.

Air-to-Surface Missile

Mr. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement about the future of the tactical air-to-surface missile.

Mr. Rifkind: The position remains unchanged: we are continuing to consider a range of options for Britain's future sub-strategic nuclear capability.

Mr. Bennett: Given that the tactical air-to-surface missile could cost more than £3 billion, given the very welcome American moratorium on nuclear tests which will make development of the warhead difficult, and given that the Germans are unlikely to allow it on their soil, would not it be better to abandon the programme now, use some of the money to make sure that we have sufficient conventional troops to meet the Government's increasing commitments and some of the money on the diversifica-stion of the defence industry?

Mr. Rifkind: The TASM is only one of the options that we are considering in order to continue with Britain's sub-strategic nuclear capability. The hon. Gentleman should realise that, in terms of our national interests and our commitment to the NATO alliance, the doctrine of flexible response requires there to be a sub-strategic capability if deterrence is to achieve its full responsibility.

Mr. Mans: Bearing in mind the experience of Tornado aircraft in the Gulf, does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that if that aircraft is to remain viable into the new century it will need a stand-off weapon, or it will be obsolete?

Mr. Rifkind: There are certainly plans to consider the upgrading of Tornado. The precise question whether TASM is the answer to that requirement is being actively considered at the moment. There are a number of ways in which the United Kingdom's sub-strategic requirements can be met. It is desirable to deal with those in a full and comprehensive manner. We would expect to come to a decision some time early in the new year.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Watson: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Watson: As the Prime Minister bobbles about helplessly in a sea of chaos, has he noticed the latest damning evidence of economic decline in today's Confederation of British Industry review, yet one of last week's U-turns—just one of them—promised economic growth? Before he finally slips beneath the surface, will the Prime Minister tell us what, if anything, he will do to prevent recession from turning into slump?

The Prime Minister: In the time that he spent preparing that question, the hon. Gentleman clearly did not read all of the CBI quarterly survey. If he had done, he would have seen output expectations up on September, export optimism up on July, the domestic prices balance at an all-time low and, for the first time ever, the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually being reduced. As to improving economic circumstances, the hon. Gentleman should note what has been done. Interest rates have been cut 11 times in two years. They are the lowest interest rates in Europe, and British firms also face the lowest corporate tax rates in Europe.

Mr. William Powell: My right hon. Friend will be aware of how welcome the declaration of the London summit on the conference on Yugoslavia was in relation to the war crimes that are taking place in Yugoslavia and also the subsequent action taking place at the United Nations. Unfortunately, of course, there is no permanent machinery for trying war crimes, although the General Assembly of the United Nations has been discussing such permanent machinery. Will my right hon. Friend encourage his colleagues in the Government to take a more constructive approach towards establishing such permanent machinery?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly content to give my hon. Friend that assurance. This was a matter that was raised at the London summit on Yugoslavia some time ago, and as a result of that, the whole matter is being examined in the United Nations.

Mr. John Smith: Could the Prime Minister explain how he takes comfort from a CBI survey which predicts that jobs will be down, output will be down, orders will be down, investment will be down and confidence will be


down? Will he answer the question that was put by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Central (Mr. Watson)? What action will he take to stop a slump?

The Prime Minister: For the second successive Question Time, the right hon. and learned Gentleman has failed to listen to an answer already given. If he had listened more carefully he would have heard what I said about output expectations, export optimism, the domestic prices balance and the balance of firms reporting unit costs actually falling. He would also know that manufacturing output has risen in each of the first two quarters, that car production was up sharply in September, and that retail sales have been up in both the second and third quarters.

Mr. John Smith: Does the Prime Minister not understand that the complacency of that answer will shock the public? Does he not realise that the British public are now sick and tired of failed economic policies as well as bogus economic promises of recovery which are never ever fulfilled?

The Prime Minister: Throughout the last three years the economic policy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman has been the same as ours, but 1 per cent. less off interest rates. Exactly the same. His commitment to the central part of our economic policy was total and frequently stated. He always wanted lower interest rates. Will he now bear it in mind that we have the lowest interest rates in the European Economic Community—lower than we have had for a long time—and that there is no economic policy whatever from the Opposition?

Sir James Kilfedder: May I, as one who voted against the Government in the crucial Division last week on the pit closures and was opposed by a Tory candidate in the general election, from my critical position of independence congratulate the Prime Minister on the brave determination that he has shown—history will commend him for it —to put the United Kingdom at the heart of Europe? Will he take the opportunity as often as possible to spell out in simple terms to the people of this country the consequences, particularly for jobs, if Britain is left on the sidelines of Europe?

The Prime Minister: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for what he has had to say. Let me say this on the European Community and the Government's policy. I believe that we have had three historic mistakes over the last 30 years in European policy. [Interruption.] The first was when we failed to join the Community at the outset. The second was when twice other countries refused to accept Britain into the European Community. They were mistakes of great damage, to not just this country but the whole of the European Community. Today, with the possibility of enlargement through the changing policies in Europe, we have more of a chance than ever we have had before of building a European Community in the image that we in this country wish to see. It would be folly at this stage to throw that away by isolating ourselves in the Community and by ending our influence. That is the way that the sort of Community we do not wish to see—not the sort of Community that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I have been fighting for for some years—comes about.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister not realise that the terrible damage done to his credibility and that of his Government by his foolish manoeuvrings over the last

week have undermined the case for Europe, for which there is a majority in the House, as well as delaying the chance of recovery, for which there is such desperate need in the nation?

The Prime Minister: What undermines the case for Europe is the manoeuvrings of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) as well as the manoeuvrings of the right hon. Gentleman himself.

Mr. Roger Evans: Can my right hon. Friend give an assurance to the House that legislation will be introduced at an early date to strengthen the law against the curse of new-age travellers?

The Prime Minister: There seems to be some competition for legislation to be introduced in the House. We are examining the particular difficulties created by new-age travellers, and I hope that at the end of that examination we will be able to produce legislation to protect those who suffer from their activities.

Mr. Illsley: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Illsley: The Prime Minister will recall that last Wednesday members of his Government said that there would be a meaningful, genuine, statutory 90-day review of the 10 collieries earmarked for closure. Bearing in mind the fact that there is no such thing as a statutory 90-day review, and that most of those collieries are now closed, does the Prime Minister accept that the House was apparently misled?

The Prime Minister: I shall reiterate to the hon. Gentleman what I said myself on the subject of the 10 pits. I made it perfectly clear then that the 10 pits that have no economic future will go through the full statutory review procedure. I made it equally clear that the Government would co-operate with the inquiry by the Trade and Industry Select Committee and that the President of the Board of Trade will give evidence if that is required.

Mr. Nicholls: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that he will never allow the EC to impose on us by the back door the social chapter that the Labour party would impose on us by the front door? Will he also confirm that he will fight for British interests and jobs in Euope, as he has always done?

The Prime Minister: I can most certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. Before I went to the negotiations on the Maastricht treaty I indicated to the House that I would not come back having accepted a single currency being imposed on this House, and equally, that I would not accept the social chapter. I honoured both of those commitments and I propose to keep to them.

Mr. Barnes: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barnes: A sales manager of British Coal, Alan Aitken, has told customers that supplies will be supplemented by imports during the period of the pit closures. This is a disgrace. How much will be added to


these imports by the agreement that the Prime Minister made with the Colombian authorities about the importation from that country of coal that is produced with the help of child labour?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is clearly reading the wrong articles, for what he has had to say is rubbish. I made no offer to stop British Coal's anti-dumping complaint. Nor did I in any way reach the sort of agreement that the hon. Gentleman suggests with the Colombian authorities—not at any stage. Since I spend a lot of my time, as the hon. Gentleman knows, seeking an agreement on GATT, it is hardly likely that I would support dumping.

Mrs. Angela Knight: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mrs. Knight: Does my right hon. Friend agree that not even the French farmers would benefit from a world trade war? Will he confirm that he will continue to pursue an early conclusion of the GATT round, which will be good for developing countries, good for Britain—including companies in my constituency of Erewash—and even good for France?

The Prime Minister: I can most certainly confirm that. The reality is that everybody would lose out from a trade war, including France and everybody who lives in France. In the last few days I have been in touch with the Americans and with leaders throughout the European Community to urge an early resumption of talks between the Community and the United States, both on a GATT agreement and on ending the dispute about oil seeds. I am glad to say that the two sides are in touch again and the United States is holding off from taking trade retaliation. We must seek an agreement both to end the dispute over oil seeds and a comprehensive agreement on the Uruguay round as speedily as possible. On the substantive point of my hon. Friend's question about benefits, it would produce £120 billion worth of extra world output were we to have a successful GATT outcome.

Mr. Cunliffe: Does the right hon. Gentleman understand that he may be out next week on 90 clays' notice, without statutory review? Will he bear with me while I relate to him the humiliating experience, which is causing great distress, that miners at Parkside colliery suffered on Friday? They were told to report to the pit every day for 90 days but that they were forbidden to go down the mine. Will the Prime Minister condemn this unspeakable behaviour and have words about it with the chairman of British Coal?

The Prime Minister: I shall examine the case that the hon. Gentleman sets out and I shall see for myself what the facts are.

Mr. Amess: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 27 October.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend— [Interruption.]—to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South (Mrs. Currie) should not behave in that way.

Mr. Amess: Is my right hon. Friend aware that mortgage interest rates for first-time buyers are now at their lowest level for 25 years? Does he agree that that will have the effect of putting more money in people's pockets so that they can spend it on goods in the high street and thereby help our economic recovery? Does he further agree that that is very good news for home buyers throughout the country and particularly for my constituents in Basildon?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend has the most famous constituents in the western world and I can confirm that the very substantial reductions in mortgage rates will help them a great deal. It will also make a significant difference to the amount of money available for high street purchases, though of course the central point is that each 1 per cent. off interest rates is worth £1 billion a year to industry, and that is vital for investment, for future prosperity and for jobs.

Dr. Kim Howells: Can the Prime Minister confirm that doubts about the future of the hugely important A1 Yamamah defence deal, which the British Government have signed with the Saudis, increase day by day and parallel the decline in the influence of his predecessor, Baroness Thatcher? Will he confirm that interest in that deal increases as it looks as though his predecessor may be making a comeback, along with that grease-palming son of hers [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. [Interruption.] We want a question from the hon. Member.

Dr. Howells: That was my question, Madam Speaker.

The Prime Minister: I refute the hon. Gentleman's distasteful remarks about my noble Friend. As for the A1 Yamamah contract, there is no doubt that the Saudi commitment to A1 Yamamah remains as strong as it has been for many years. That has been stressed to the Secretary of State for Defence and directly to me by the king.

Child Care Inquiries (Orkney and Fife)

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): rose—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leaving the Chamber please do so quietly so that we may get on with an important statement?—

Mr. Lang: With permission, I shall make a statement about child care in Scotland. I have today published—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I am sure that the hon. Member is about to tell me that he cannot hear the Minister. I have already appealed for order. We can debate only within the framework of good order. I appeal for that.

Mr. Lang: I have today published as a Return to an Address of the House the report which Lord Clyde prepared of the inquiry that I asked him to undertake into the removal of nine children from South Ronaldsay to a place of safety on 27 February 1991. I have also published as a Return to an Address of the House Sheriff Brian Kearney's report on child care policies in Fife following the inquiry which my predecessor asked him to undertake. I am also placing in the Library later today letters that I am sending today to the chief executives of the two authorities concerned and also letters to the chief executives of all regional and islands councils about the action to be taken on the two reports.
These are two important reports which have major implications for child protection and for the management of child care policies.
Dealing first with the Orkney inquiry, I am grateful to Lord Clyde for completing such a full and clear report into circumstances which were both difficult and complicated. He has not only set out very clearly the facts of the handling of a difficult episode but has drawn helpful conclusions and made positive recommendations which have major implications for child care law and practice. I am also grateful to the expert assessors who supported Lord Clyde in carrying out his task, Miss Anne Black and Dr. Hugh Morton.
The report identified significant failings on the part of Orkney islands council social work department, the Northern Constabulary and the Royal Scottish Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, not only in the way in which the decision to remove the children was reached but also how it was implemented and how the interviews were carried out with the children. The House should be in no doubt that the report is justifiably critical of the way in which the affair was handled.
Lord Clyde goes beyond immediate criticisms, however, to make positive recommendations designed to prevent situations of the kind arising again in the future. At the same time, he recognises the way in which agencies —and, in particular, social workers—have to face very difficult decisions in carrying out their duty to protect children. In this case, in particular, he notes that all those involved acted in good faith.
I have examined the 194 recommendations of the report with care. Action is needed and I am anxious to see early progress. Some recommendations can be implemented

without undue delay, while others require primary legislation or further consideration and consultation. A number fall directly to the Scottish Office for action, but others affect other agencies: local authorities, the police and the health service. I am minded to accept the great majority of the recommendations and to take them forward in consultation with the agencies involved as a matter of priority. Some recommendations will require further consideration, and my officials will be contacting the organisations concerned to follow those up.
I have it in mind to make changes broadly along the lines that Lord Clyde has recommended on emergency protection of children and their removal to a place of safety. Those would be implemented principally by primary legislation and I will include my detailed proposals for change in a White Paper on child care policy and law which I shall publish early next year. I am also minded to accept certain changes proposed for regulations, and revised regulations will be issued for consultation in the usual way. Those changes will be designed to increase the safeguards for children and parents involved in child protection investigations and procedures.
A considerable number of the changes recommended relate to central guidance. We are committed to revise the central Scottish Office guidance on "Effective Intervention", and this will be done in the light of Lord Clyde's recommendations. At the same time, we have established with the Association of Directors of Social Work a working party which will produce new practice guidance for social workers engaged in child protection. I shall ask the working party to embody Lord Clyde's recommendations in that guidance. One recommendation that I would particularly highlight, and which I endorse, is Lord Clyde's recommendation that removal of a child should be recognised as a course to be considered only where no alternative exists and the urgency of the risk requires it, and that caution must be exercised.
I have also established, with the Lord Advocate, a working party to draw up guidance on joint working and the interviewing of children. That involves the police, the Crown Office, social work and other expert interests. I shall direct them to Lord Clyde's recommendations as the basis for their work. I intend all that work to be carried out as a matter of urgency.
Training for child protection is identified as an area of major importance. This has already been recognised by the significant commitment to various initiatives, notably support of the development of courses at Dundee university and the introduction in 1992–93 of the new specific grant to help local authorities develop social work training. I propose immediately to increase substantially the amount available for specialist training for social workers in the islands this year and to give close attention to the need to improve training in the current public expenditure round.
The report provides an invaluable basis for moving ahead to improve child care. It not only analyses events within Orkney but draws conclusions and makes recommendations that should improve the way in which we afford protection to children in future. I also support what Lord Clyde says at the conclusion of his report that, at the end of the day, the welfare of the nine children involved should not be overlooked and every opportunity should be taken to overcome any effects of the inquiry and the incidents which prompted it. I am sure that the House would want to endorse those sentiments. I also endorse his


plea for action to re-establish relationships between the Orkney islands council social work department and the local community. There will be an inspection next year in Orkney by the social work services inspectorate which I established earlier this year.
On the report of Sheriff Kearney's inquiry on child care policies in Fife, the inquiry was established because of issues which were brought to the attention of my predecessor about the child care policies pursued by Fife regional council. As a result of his inquiry, Sheriff Kearney has reached the conclusion that
very serious cause for concern exists as to the implementation of the Regional Council's Social Work Department's child care policy".
I accept that view. Sheriff Kearney makes a number of recommendations directed to Fife regional council to rectify those matters.
I also accept his view that the implementation of the recommendations of the report will not remove the deficiencies described by Sheriff Kearney until and unless the region and the director of social work are prepared to accept that those deficiencies exist. I have today written to the council asking it to let me have a report within eight weeks on how it proposes to implement the recommendations specifically addressed to it and what action it proposes to take on the issues of concern highlighted in the conclusions of the report. In particular, I have asked what action they are taking to improve working relationships within the child care system in Fife. My officials will meet regional council officials to discuss implementation and there will also be an inspection next year in Fife by the social work services inspectorate.
With regard to the general recommendations, I am minded to accept the great majority of the recommendations, subject in some cases to consultation, and I am writing today to a wide range of interests to draw some recommendations to their attention for immediate action. Other recommendations will be incorporated in guidance to be issued by me or in primary legislation in due course.
I am grateful to Sheriff Kearney and his social work assessor, Professor Mapstone, for the care that they have given to this complex remit.
I am very conscious of the difficult nature of the important task which confronts social workers, the police and other agencies in the whole area of child care—the dilemma that they face in deciding whether, when and how to intervene is often acute—but I am also conscious of the importance of public confidence in this work, which has such a major impact on the lives and wellbeing of children and their families. Above all there is the overriding obligation to ensure that in every action by the many bodies with responsibilities in this field, decisions are taken with care and the best interests and welfare of the children remain paramount at all times.
These detailed and substantial reports address very serious issues to which all concerned must respond. The action that I have announced today will be carried forward urgently by the Scottish Office in consultation with all the relevant agencies. It is my firm intention that it will result in improvements in procedures and in the quality of practice for the future.

Mr. Tom Clarke: I join the Secretary of State in expressing the gratitude of the House to Lord Clyde, whose professionalism, as well as that of his team, is enormously respected. We also express our gratitude to Sheriff Brian Kearney, who has produced a

report that we shall consider carefully. Whatever view we may take of the recommendations, the reports clearly convey the anguish of the many people—children, parents, social workers, the police, and others—who have lived through these traumatic times.
All this inevitably invites the question: why did the inquiries take so long, and were they the best way to approach matters of such extreme sensitivity? The Fife inquiry was launched by the Scottish Office in March 1989 and was expected to take three months, but it was not delivered until June this year, by which time Fife regional council took the view that it had done everything possible to review its procedures in the interests of all concerned. Given the Secretary of State's comments, it is only fair that the House should hear the response of Fife regional council before we embark on an informed debate.
The Orkney inquiry was the second longest in Scotland's history. It was expensive, it was adversarial, it took 135 days, and it is said to have cost about £6 million. For reasons which are given by Lord Clyde, its remit was restricted to such an extent that even today we have no means of knowing the full facts. We know, however, that there was enormous heartache for children, parents, social workers, reporters, members of the children's panel, and others. Does the Secretary of State therefore agree that the reports invite more thorough debate than will be possible in the next half hour, and more detailed thought than is possible in newspaper headlines?
The right hon. Gentleman will agree that the two reports sometimes veer in different directions. For the sake of the children's safety and welfare, which must be the paramount consideration for us all, we need to examine carefully the circumstances in which children should be removed from their homes, when they should not be, and what are the best ways to cause the least possible stress to children who need our protection.
The Opposition welcome Lord Clyde's recommendations on emergency provision for children which would clarify an important aspect of the law as it stands. We also welcome his views in relation to removal of the child only when no alternative exists. The Secretary of State can expect our support for his recommendations on the need for primary and secondary legislation, if only because current legislation as summarised in the Scottish Office document "Effective Intervention" is clearly less than adequate. A study of Lord Clyde's report will reveal a genuine attempt to strike a balance between the need to ensure that the right of every child is paramount and the problem of having to take decisions on matters of such extreme delicacy.
The best way to show recognition of both reports is to consider the recommendations seriously. I therefore ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees that there is a need for improved training and that this is of the utmost importance. It is clear that these matters cannot be dealt with in the absence of proper resources and that the Secretary of State's response today on the specific issue of training falls short even of the recommendations contained in the report of Lord Justice Butler-Sloss. Perhaps that is a reflection of the discussions already taking place on public expenditure in Scotland.
Does the Secretary of State agree that it is equally clear that we need a system which properly protects children, properly guards parents' rights and properly provides guidelines which are clearly understood by professionals in this work in Orkney and elsewhere in the rest of Scotland?
When precisely may we expect the Secretary of State's review of child care legislation? When does he expect to re-examine the important role of children's hearings, and what thought has he given to the problems of voluntary organisations, and even individuals, who have exhausted their resources to give evidence to this type of inquiry?
There have been criticisms of some in the report, even though it is said that they acted in good faith. However, there can be little point in looking for scapegoats when clearly so much is at stake. Criticisms surely lie with us all, if only because we failed to recognise the deficiencies of the system in coping with these horrendous events. We failed to listen to children at their own pace. We failed to accept sufficiently that social workers and others are damned if they do and damned if they don't. We failed in the past; in the interests of our children, that is all the more reason for getting things right in future.

Mr. Lang: I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) for what he said about the work of Lord Clyde and of Sheriff Kearney. These are two good reports which inform in an authoritative and detailed way our future consideration of this extremely important issue.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's feeling about the time taken, especially in producing the Fife report. I think that he will acknowledge that an immensely detailed report of almost 800 pages is one which needed careful consideration. It comes from a sheriff with a distinguished and authoritative record and it will repay the closest scrutiny.
The 135 comments and criticisms and 194 recommendations set out in the Orkney report summarise a report of 360 pages, which was compiled and delivered within one year. I think that Lord Clyde is to be congratulated on the efficient way in which he brought together all the strands of the immensely complex subject that he had to consider.
I agree that it is important to hear Fife regional council's response to criticisms of its social work department, and that it would be wrong to rush to judgment. I address those words to the press and other media in particular. Complex matters are involved, and it would be wrong to go on any kind of witch hunt or to over-simplify complicated, interrelated issues.
The hon. Gentleman gave a figure of £6 million as the cost of the Orkney inquiry. The cost to the Scottish Office so far is £2.25 million, though further expenses may yet have to be met. The taxpayer's contribution was confined to reasonable costs incurred by participants in the inquiry.
The removal of children from home is an aspect of great importance, and I urge the House to reflect carefully on Lord Clyde's comments and recommendations:
The timing of the removals was beyond serious criticism … Removal of a child must be recognised as a course to be considered when no alternative exists and the urgency of the risk requires it … The time for the removal of a child must depend on the whole circumstances of each particular case but the prime consideration must be the welfare of the child.
That aspect must be further carefully considered.
I welcome the hon. Gentleman's support for legislation, new guidance and the initiatives that we are preparing. He rightly emphasised the importance of training. There is a considerable commitment to training in terms of both effort and resources. In 1992, we introduced a specific grant for social work training to support £4 million of

training expenditure by local authorities. That is additional to the £5 million that I spend directly, at my own hand, on social work training. Scottish Office grant was provided to enable the establishment of post-qualifying studies in child protection at Dundee university and it continues to provide financial support. In 1991 and 1992–93, an additional grant was made to Dundee to provide child protection training to islands authorities, and a further £40,000 is to be provided for islands child protection training this year. That important aspect deserves our continuing attention.
As to reviewing child care legislation—in that context, the hon. Gentleman mentioned children's hearings and the work of voluntary organisations—the White Paper that we plan to publish next spring will bring together a whole range of issues affecting child care, and will provide the basis on which there can be consultation, leading to subsequent legislation at an early opportunity.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of where criticism should be directed and where failure lay. Lord Clyde identified a large number of specific areas in which he discerned failure. It behoves the individuals and bodies in question to study his comments carefully and to give their considered reaction—I emphasise the word "considered" —so that the House and the country can go forward on an informed basis.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I seek the co-operation of the House. Right hon. and hon. Members will have noticed that the exchanges between Members on the Front Benches took longer than 20 minutes. I want to call as many Back Benchers as possible, but I ask for direct questions, and for the Secretary of State's co-operation in giving short answers.

Mr. Bill Walker: My right hon. and learned Friend will be aware of the considerable concern felt in Scotland when these matters came into the public domain. It was right for the Government to commission a thorough investigation, although there may be some criticism of the vehicles used. However, there can be no dispute that we now have the facts and that the Government are introducing the necessary measures to right the wrongs. That should have the support of the whole House.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is right. We must never lose sight of the importance which attaches to the circumstances of the child. There is always a danger of getting so caught up in procedures, regulations and guidance that we forget the overriding importance of protecting the interests of any affected child or children.

Mr. James Wallace: I hope that the House will allow me some indulgence, as the events concerned happened in my constituency. I shall restrict my comments to the Orkney inquiry; I hope that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Fife, North-East (Mr. Campbell) will catch your eye later, Madam Speaker, so that he can say something about Sheriff Kearney's report.
I join the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) in congratulating Lord Clyde on his report. At first sight it strikes me as thorough, and it certainly pulls no punches. I also congratulate him on the relative speed with which the report was produced, following the conclusion of the inquiry. For some time, a


cloud of uncertainty and suspicion has hung over my constituency, and implementation of Lord Clyde's final recommendation—that we now start to improve the quality of relationships—cannot begin a moment too soon. We are very grateful to him.
I also thank the Secretary of State for the balanced terms of his statement. He has reminded us of the importance of remembering the social workers do a job on behalf of us all, and all of us—not least parliamentarians —have a duty to them to provide clear guidelines to enable them to continue that task. We should also remember that, ultimately, the interests of the children are paramount, not least those of the nine children involved in the Orkney case.
Can the Secretary of State give us some idea of which recommendations he intends to accept and which he is still considering? Although his announcement about the training of social workers in the islands is welcome, Lord Clyde's recommendations extend well beyond the position in Orkney. Training throughout Scotland is essential.
Is the Secretary of State in a position to tell us what he said in his letter to the chief executive of Orkney islands council? Does he recognise that the report does not clear anyone's name? Indeed, that was never part of its initial remit. I do not blame Lord Clyde, but Lord Clyde himself expressed concern about that point in the report. Will the Secretary of State consider, with the Law Officers, whether steps can now be taken to remove suspicion for good, and to clear the air?
It seems that, if Lord Clyde's recommendations had been followed, nine of my young constituents would not have suffered the trauma that they experienced in the spring of last year. In calling on the statutory and voluntary agencies to pay proper heed to the criticisms levelled against them, will the Secretary of State endorse my view that such criticisms should be viewed in the context of Lord Clyde's comments in paragraph 14.110 of the report? Lord Clyde states:
The purpose of this Inquiry has not been to find guilt or innocence or to distribute praise or blame but rather in recognising that things may have gone wrong, to endeavour to learn from past mistakes and to make suggestions as to how such mistakes may not be repeated in the future.
Perhaps, at the end of the day, some positive developments will emerge from what has been a very sorry episode.

Mr. Lang: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks, and I agree with all the sentiments that he has expressed.
The hon. Gentleman asked me which of Lord Clyde's 194 recommendations we were minded to accept. I will try to help him, as I recognise his close constituency interest. We are minded to accept some 148 of the recommendations without qualification, and to accept a further 26 or so subject to consultation. We are willing to consider a further 20, but we make no commitment at this stage. It would be difficult to group the recommendations in a way that would make any clear sense to the hon. Gentleman, but I shall be happy to pursue the matter with him if he wishes. I should also be happy to send the hon. Gentleman a copy of the letter to Orkney islands council. I think that he would find that helpful. It is, however, difficult to characterise such a long and detailed letter.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of clearing the air, but he also recognised that that was no part of the remit of Lord Clyde's inquiry. Any question of guilt or innocence should be decided in a court of law. Lord Clyde uses the phrase

"presumption of innocence", and I feel that we should found our approach on that phrase. The Crown investigations are not currently continuing.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: I, too, congratulate Lord Clyde on producing such a short synopsis of an eight-month inquiry into matters ranging from the relevant but fatuous to the relevant and important.
The Secretary of State should examine the implications of the inquiry very carefully. It took eight months and cost 6 million quid; innumerable lawyers attended it, for the most spurious reasons, and evidence was called which was entirely irrelevant. The one thing that the inquiry was not entitled to decide was whether any, some or none of the children concerned were rightly or wrongly removed from the care of their parents. To have an inquiry at that cost, at that length, and with that number of lawyers, when the one question that the inquiry was about was not allowed to be discussed is absurd.

Mr. Lang: I am interested in what my hon. and learned Friend says. Since it comes from him, as a distinguished advocate, I have no doubt that his fellow members of the legal profession will note with interest what he has said. The form of the inquiry was a matter for Lord Clyde to decide in the case of Orkney, and for Sheriff Kearney in the case of Fife. It was important that they should have that discretion so as not to inhibit their search for the truth. I feel, however, that there must be a better way of conducting these affairs. It is a matter to which I am giving close attention, with a view to considering whether there may be a better, shorter and more effective way of proceeding with such matters, should the need arise in the future.

Mr. Henry McLeish: I warmly welcome the fact that a working party is to be established as the forerunner of a White Paper. If I may refer to the Fife inquiry, the Secretary of State knows that his predecessor, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), said that the inquiry would take three months, but it has taken three years and seven months. There is huge disquiet among social workers, Fife regional council and others about the time taken to undertake the review.
May I also ask the Secretary of State about the costs involved in the inquiry and whether Fife regional council will have to pay part of the sum, which is estimated to be possibly £4 million? Finally, why was there no summary of the 800-page report, which was published today and which local Members were given the opportunity to see it only an hour before the statement was made? As the inquiry lasted for three years and seven months, one is also entitled to ask why there was no interim report and why no discussions were held between Fife regional council and the Scottish Office—if the Secretary of State is so concerned about the outcome of Sheriff Kearney's report.

Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety about the length of time taken. The inquiry took longer than I would have wished, and I suspect that it took longer than everyone on both sides of the House, and in Fife, would have wished. As I explained in answer to the last question, the conduct of an inquiry, once it is established, is a matter for the individual conducting the inquiry. A number of undertakings were given as to the final delivery


date, but they were not entirely met. The Fife report runs to nearly 800 pages. It is a detailed report which requires close study and I feel sure that it will inform the very important subject of child care considerations for some considerable time.
The hon. Gentleman referred to costs and who would be liable for them. I am still considering the position regarding costs. I estimate that the cost to the Scottish Office may be in excess of £800,000.
As for the publication of the report, it was published under the Parliamentary Papers Act 1840, which requires some constraint. That is normal in the case of all Government statements, since to make available advance copies would be regarded as a discourtesy to the House. That underlines the importance of considering the report carefully before rushing to judgment. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will encourage those with whom he has discussions on these matters to take that attitude.

Mr. George Kynoch: I am sure that the whole House welcomes my right hon. Friend's announcement that he is to issue a White Paper in the new year. Will it involve a wide-ranging examination into child care law in its entirety, and will he therefore take full account of both the reports published today?

Mr. Lang: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. The White Paper will cover a broad range of child care issues. It will take account of both reports and also of the Finlayson report into the function of reporters, as well as a number of other working studies and reports that have been carried out in recent months, together with those which may be triggered by the announcement that I have made today.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Secretary of State agree that the report has immense impact and is applicable throughout Scotland? Paragraph 14.3 says that the timing of the removals was beyond serious criticism. Paragraph 14.10 says that medical examinations should have been undertaken before the removals. Paragraphs 15.40 and 15.41 recommend that parents should be told immediately of suspicions and that proper examinations should be made before removals.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of a case in my constituency. in which people were arrested in a dawn raid and children removed after a so-called six-month investigation when neither the parents nor the children had been interviewed and no medical examinations had been made? Will the right hon. Gentleman state clearly that such dawn raids, which are clearly fishing expeditions, are to be deprecated and should cease? Does he appreciate that we have all felt revulsion at the allegations, we all believe that the interests of children are paramount, and we all understand the tremendous pressure on social workers, but in considering the paramountcy of children we should also consider the enormous damage that can be done to children by action being taken precipitately where allegations are found to be unproven? If investigations and action are taken too quickly, it could lead social workers later to draw back when they should go forward.

Mr. Lang: I understand the hon. Gentleman's points and recognise his close interest and experience in investigating such matters. I understand what he said

about dawn raids and the anxiety that exists; indeed, I share it. He will recognise that Lord Clyde suggests that a child should be removed only when no alternative exists. It is most important to try to find alternatives, but implicit in the outcome of the report is the fact that there could be occasions of high risk or great emergency when it might be necessary for immediate action to be taken. For that reason, it would be dangerous to curtail or in any way to increase the constraints on the actions that are possible.
The then Minister of the State, Scottish Office, looked fully into the inquiry into Grampian children, and the present chief inspector of social work examined the facts and reported to my hon. Friend on the lessons that might be learned. Certain points were drawn to the attention of Grampian regional council, and in the light of that it was not considered necessary to hold any form of public inquiry. I know that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was informed of that at the time, but he is right to draw the link between the two because many of the recommendations and findings of the two reports that I have published today will have application for social work departments all over Scotland and beyond.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Will my right hon. Friend take this further opportunity to re-emphasise that, with almost 200 recommendations, the last thing that we require in the House—or, much more importantly, outside—is hasty judgments and quick decisions? What is essential is time for measured and thoughtful reflection on this most emotive and sensitive subject.

Mr. Lang: I thank my hon. Friend. He will have noticed that I emphasised the urgency of proceeding in some areas. I regard eight weeks as an appropriate time within which to ask Fife regional council social work department to respond to the specific directions which apply to it. Where there is an opportunity to make immediate progress which can improve the operation, guidance and handling of these matters, we must take it. My hon. Friend is right, however —we must look at the broader issues at length and in depth before proceeding.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: I am tempted to suggest to the Secretary of State that these formidable documents deal with matters so serious that we should have an early debate on them in the Scottish Grand Committee. If the primary concern is the welfare of children caught up in these dreadful events, why is it always the child and not the alleged perpetrator who is removed from the home? I am no lawyer, and Members will wince at the suggestion, but I hope that the working party will examine the alternative of removing the alleged perpetrator rather than the child from the home.

Mr. Lang: I am not sure about the practicality of that suggestion and I should like to reflect further on it. Importance attaches not only to the question of removal, but to taking the child to a place of safety. There are a number of considerations which must be thoroughly investigated, and Lord Clyde makes a number of recommendations in that regard.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it would be appropriate to have a debate on these matters at some stage. Whether that should be before or after the


publication of the White Paper is a matter for consideration. I certainly agree that these matters should be debated.

Mr. Geoffrey Dickens: I welcome the report, which is very useful for child care. Does my right hon. Friend accept that ritual abuse takes place throughout the United Kingdom and that paedophiles have found a way to get total control of a child's mind and body by devil worship and satanism? They put the fear of the devil into children so that they have total command over them. I hope the Secretary of State agrees that the only way—

Madam Speaker: Order. I know of the hon. Gentleman's interest in these matters, but we are putting questions on a specific report. I should be obliged if the hon. Gentleman would do that.

Mr. Dickens: Does the Secretary of State feel that, to save us from such reports in the future, if a child is interviewed on video the first interview after the allegations are made should be in comfortable surroundings, as the Piggott committee recommended? That might save all the heart searching and anguish for parents and children.

Mr. Lang: I am interested in what my hon. Friend says. I venture to suggest that matters are not quite so straightforward as he suggests. I urge him to consider carefully the number of detailed recommendations on interviewing made by Lord Clyde. My hon. Friend is right to identify that as an important area in which shortcomings were clearly found, and I agree that it is an area in which change is necessary.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State agree that it is a matter for considerable regret that application of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968, which has been internationally regarded as a milestone in the treatment of children and their care, should be the subject of such controversy in its application within Fife region? The degree of divergence between the views of the head of the social work department and chose of Sheriff Kearney is significant and considerable. In the light of that, will the Secretary of State assure us that careful consideration will be given to the question of what lessons are to be drawn from the report?
Having regard to the fact that the public interest must be served and that public confidence in the system must be seen to be established, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he intends to make public the recommendations in Sheriff Kearney's report with which he agrees and those with which he does not agree? His statement is a little oblique on that point, at least at present.

Mr. Lang: I am minded to accept all Sheriff Kearney's recommendations, subject to some further consultation on some of them, with the exception of one—I believe that it is No. 22—which applies to aggressive children and which I believe is too sweeping in its application.
I agree that it is unfortunate that it is thought appropriate to recommend amendments to the 1986 Act. Nevertheless, if amendment of the Act is considered appropriate, we must consider it so as to ensure that the Act as amended continues to fulfil its purpose.
I agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman on Sheriff Kearney's comments on Fife and on the need to restore

confidence, and I hope that that was implicit in my statement. Two important points from Sheriff Kearney's report focus on those points. First, he says:
We believe we have demonstrated … that very serious cause for concern exists as to the implementation of the Regional Council's Social Work Department's child care policy.
In paragraph 27 of chapter XVI of part J, he says:
We do not, however, believe that the implementation of these recommendations will remove the deficiencies which we have detected in the implementation of the Region's Social Work policy by its Social Work Department until and unless the Region and the Director of Social Work are prepared to accept that the deficiencies which we have described exist.
That is the key to the restoration of confidence.

Mr. John Butcher: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be an affront to the parents and children involved if our subsequent discussion of the report confined itself merely to general systems, training and resources, because gross errors of judgment were made which perpetrated a nightmare for those affected? Does the report help us to solve a mystery which was raised by investigative journalists at the time? They pointed out that, in the United States, there was a sudden interest among social workers in the link between satanic rituals and the abuse of children. Among some social work circles here, that interest seems to have crossed the Atlantic, yet there has subsequently been no proof whatever of any link between so-called satanic worship and child abuse. How do these things happen? [Interruption.] This is relevant to what happened to the children in Scotland—

Madam Speaker: Order. This is not a debate.

Mr. Butcher: —and it is also relevant to the sort of training that was given in the past.

Mr. Lang: I emphasise that it was not the purpose of the inquiries—in particular, the Orkney inquiry—to establish guilt or innocence. Lord Clyde referred to the presumption of innocence, and that is the basis on which we must proceed.
My hon. Friend referred to a nightmare. Certainly, it would be a nightmare for any of those children if they were subject to abuse of whatever type. There is also a nightmare that can be identified—the way in which their cases were handled during and after their removal from their homes. Those are matters which we can address and which Lord Clyde does, indeed, address. He makes a number of detailed and important recommendations, and there we can and must act as swiftly as is sensible to ensure that that avoidable nightmare does not recur.

Mr. Norman Hogg: Does the Secretary of State agree that, every hour of the day, social workers throughout Scotland provide great care and show great concern for children in need, and that they are highly professional? It is against that background that the tragic events in Orkney must be seen. Does the Secretary of State further agree that there is a need to improve training to ensure that social workers enjoy the same professional status as other professional staff within local government? Finally, will the Secretary of State undertake to ensure that, when social work responsibilities are transferred to the new local authorities, those local authorities have the capacity to ensure that the responsibilities that we have placed on social workers in Scotland can be discharged?

Mr. Lang: In answer to the hon. Gentleman's last question, it is certainly our purpose to ensure that that is the case. I recognise that social workers have a difficult job; I hope that I acknowledged that in my statement, which recognised the dilemma and the anguish that they face in reaching decisions on occasion. As the hon. Gentleman clearly recognises, it is important that they should make their decisions on the basis of the best possible training and that there should be the best possible application of the right principles in judging a case. There should be proper interaction between different agencies. Decisions should be properly reached, formulated and recorded, and all aspects of the matter should be handled in a very professional way. That means more and better training, and that is what we have been seeking to achieve through the initiatives that we have taken in recent years and through the further initiatives that I have announced today.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: My right hon. Friend referred to the position in Scotland, but said that some of the recommendations would have a wider application. Will my right hon. Friend and his colleagues bear in mind the fact that in England and Wales there has been a sea change in emergency protection of children since the Children Act 1989 came into operation last year? It is most important that that should be recognised in considering the recommendations especially as, since the Children Act came into operation, there has been a substantial decrease in the number of children who have been removed under the emergency provisions.

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend clearly recognises the importance of this subject as one which crosses frontiers. The formal recommendations in the reports apply to Scotland, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health takes a close interest in these matters, and her officials and mine are in close contact on all aspects. Just as we learned from Cleveland, and took a number of initiatives immediately after the inquiry, I am sure that my ministerial colleagues south of the border will be studying the reports closely.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: I welcome the reports, which I think will engage the minds not only of hon. Members but of many individuals and agencies outwith the House. I seek an assurance that the Secretary of State will ensure that the recommendations that are to be accepted immediately are not only sent to the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) but circulated to all hon. Members and to the regional authorities responsible for social work.
As the Secretary of State knows, I am very interested in training, as I was previously involved in it and was paid by the Scottish Office to do so. I therefore emphasise that while we obviously welcome any addtional funding for the training of social workers, there must be a very careful assessment to ensure that there is practical training and not solely academic training. To ensure that the best principles of practice are engaged in reaching such criteria decisions, time should be given during the training process for as much practical field work as possible for the trainees.

Mr. Lang: On the hon. Lady's first point, about recommendations to be accepted, I will try to find a way of informing the House more widely on progress. The hon.
Lady will recognise, however, that we are consulting on some of the recommendations and awaiting a reaction from the councils and social work departments involved. It may therefore be a few weeks before we can publish a clear and coherent list.
I acknowledge the importance of what the hon. Lady has said about training. Knowledge and practice in relation to child care have advanced considerably in recent years and are still advancing. It is very much our purpose to ensure that the quality of training improves and advances to take account of new information and understanding as that becomes apparent.

Dr. John Reid: Can the Secretary of State assure me that a central element in the deliberations arising from the reports will be the question of burden of proof'? I ask that because I believe that the public do not always understand that the burden of proof required in order to act to protect a child is, of necessity, much lower than the burden of proof required to prosecute one or more alleged abusers of children. Because that confusion exists in the public mind, it is often thought that, because the burden of proof required to protect a child is lower it somehow diminishes the necessity to protect children or belittles the social workers who act on that lower proof.
It is essential that we define that difference and ensure that it is propagated as widely as possible so that the public understand the difficulties under which social workers act, and that, when they act to protect children, there may not of necessity be a criminal prosecution against one or more individuals. Unless that is done, I am afraid that social workers will be caught once again between the devil and the deep blue sea and, in the long run, will be unable to win whether or not they take children into protection.

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Our purpose in seeking to improve the quality of training and the interaction of the different bodies in their handling of such matters in future is to minimise the risk of a wrong decision being taken and to strengthen the possibility that the decisions taken in future will be well founded and right. That would narrow the difference that the hon. Gentleman discerns.

Mr. George Foulkes: Does the Secretary of State agree that the very difficult decision for social workers of reconciling the rights of parents with the safety of children is made infinitely more difficult by the sensationalism of certain sections of the media, not just in Orkney but also in Ayrshire, where social workers were harassed by the media at their homes in the early hours of the morning? How does the Secretary of State intend to grasp that nettle?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. That was included in the terms of reference for Lord Clyde, and he has made a number of recommendations on that front. He also makes recommendations on the rights of parents, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. Very close consideration must be given to those rights to ensure that the minimum is done to cause difficulties in families in cases in which it subsequently transpires that there was total innocence.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: In our brief discussion today, we have been dealing with the avoidance of errors which have caused great distress to children and


to innocent parents. Will the House send the message today to every child who is suffering abuse that the House is determined to ensure that that terrible crime will not be tolerated and that all the judiciary should understand that there is never any excuse for abusing children?

Mr. Lang: I absolutely agree with the hon. Lady and I am grateful to her.

Pit Closures

Mr. Ted Rowlands: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 20, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
British Coal's actions at the Taff Merthyr colliery, which are in breach of the assurances given by the President of the Board of Trade and the Secretary of State for Wales to the House on 21 October.
In the debate last Wednesday, two Cabinet Ministers, and indeed the Prime Minister at Question Time today, gave categoric assurances that no action would be taken to prejudice the outcome of the genuine consultations that should take place under the 90-day statutory procedure relating to the 10 pits. Taff Merthyr colliery was one of those pits. But last Friday, British Coal announced that it was stopping all coal production. Indeed, as men were receiving the news, lorryloads of shale started arriving at the colliery site with the sole purpose of filling in the shaft. Such an action makes a mockery of two Cabinet Ministers' assurances to the House.
Over the weekend, the National Union of Mineworkers and the local lodge commissioned a senior mining engineer to produce a report. It was completed yesterday afternoon, and I delivered that report to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's office yesterday evening.
The report by that senior mining engineer states that, unless British Coal continues to produce coal, the one face of this pit, the roadways leading to it and the machinery will be speedily and fatally damaged. Thus, British Coal's decision not to produce any more coal again makes nonsense of the Minister's assurances to the House. The report demonstrates also that, if the colliery continued to coal and men continued to have jobs and worked, even during the 90-day period, it could make up to £3 million profit, instead of spending nearly £500,000 a week allowing men to remain idle.
Earlier today, I am glad to say, I received at least modest comfort from a message from the President of the Board of Trade's office that British Coal has now agreed not to send any more lorries of shale. But, as yet, it has not met the other fundamental requirement identified in the mining engineer's report—that we need to continue to produce coal at Taff Merthyr colliery in order that assurances by Ministers are upheld.
The pressure of parliamentary debates last week and the assurances that were obtained during those parliamentary debates led to the commitment to genuine consultation for those 10 pits. I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, at least to allow a further debate so that we can expose British Coal's shabby, indecent. hasty actions to close Taff Merthyr prematurely.

Madam Speaker: I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) said. I have to give my decision, as he knows, without stating any reasons. I am afraid that I do not consider that the matter that he has raised is appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 20 and I therefore cannot submit the application to the House.

Mr. Derek Enright: The specific nature of this request for a debate arises from the virtual obliteration of any jobs for my constituents in what were once three thriving mining villages, Havercroft, Hiendley and Ryhill. I was notified last night by constituents that the management of Grimethorpe are setting up salvage teams to perform work which will essentially destroy the fabric of the pit, rendering resumption of coal mining there impossible. The men are also being told that, unless they take their compulsory voluntary redundancy this Friday, their redundancy pay will be reckoned from the 13th of this month. In other words, they will be paid at a considerably lower rate and will lose considerable sums should redundancies come about.
I have talked to the Minister for Energy about this matter, and he has promised to intervene personally with the management at Grimethorpe. But even so, unless urgent action is taken, the pit will be closed, against the wishes of the House and against the stated intention of the President of the Board of Trade.
On Monday, the salvage team will go down to dismantle machinery. It will be the death of a pit, in spite of the promise by the President of the Board of Trade in the House. Moreover, in spite of what the President said, that pit, in association with Houghton main colliery, made a profit of £223,000 last week. Scarcely any of that profit was made from the electricity supply industry. The factories and plants that receive coal from Grimethorpe have been put in an impossible position. They are compelled to contract to buy foreign coal, which is £1 a tonne dearer. How does that help the balance of payments, or for that matter inflation?
The President of the Board of Trade must come to the House urgently. He must join in debate, and put Grimethrope and the other nine pits back on the list with the 21. Otherwise, we shall know that the consequences for Grimethorpe colliery will be a foregone conclusion.
However, more important than the pit that will close are the three communities that will be devastated and the 500 families who face a bleak future—the 1,500 men, women and children whose Christmas sacks will come not from Father Christmas but from British Coal. I beg you, Madam Speaker, to let Parliament speak up for the three communities which urgently and importantly do not want to see almost half of their men on the dole, but would rather see them toil in dignity.

Madam Speaker: Yet again, I have listened carefully to what the hon. Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) has said. As he knows, I must give a decision to the House without giving reasons. I do not consider that the matter that he raised is appropriate for discussions under standing order No. 20 and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

Points of Order

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I rise to ask for your assistance and guidance about a difficulty that has arisen, which involves both a Standing Committee and a Select Committee of the House. The difficulty has arisen inadvertently, but nevertheless it exists.
Tomorrow, European Standing Committee B is to consider a motion from the Government on a European Community document on cultural goods, and the Standing Committee is to be asked to endorse the Government's policy on that matter. Last Thursday, the National Heritage Select Committee decided to conduct a speedy inquiry into the matter. If the Standing Committee makes its decisions tomorrow, the inquiry by the Select Committee will be rendered otiose and the Standing Committee will not have available to it the report of the Select Committee. It is intended that the report will be completed and made available to the House speedily, bearing in mind that the Internal Market Council of the European Community is to consider the matter on 10 November.
There is a further difficulty in connection with the document. There are two European Community documents which, although they have been distributed to some members of the Standing Committee, are not available to all members of the Standing Committee. The documents have not been deposited and are therefore not available to members of the Select Committee or to the House in general. That being so, it seems to me and to several right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House that advantage will be gained if the Standing Committee can defer its consideration of the document for a few days, to enable the document to be made available to the House and to enable the Select Committee to deliver its report.

Mr. John Gorst: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I wonder whether you could give me guidance. If it is not possible to defer consideration of the document, as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) suggested, and if the meeting takes place, the motion is passed and the Select Committee then makes an adverse report, perhaps even producing new information, would it be in order under Standing Order No. 20 for such a matter to be raised to enable a Select Committee report to be considered? I do not ask you to rule about the merits of the argument, but would it be procedurally possible to ask, under Standing Order No. 20, for a debate to take place in the light of the decision that has been made, but clearly should not have been?

Dr. Norman A. Godman: rose—

Madam Speaker: Is it on the same point of order?

Dr. Godman: Yes, it is on the same matter. Speaking as a member of European Standing Committee B, I feel that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has raised a valid objection to the meeting of my Committee going ahead tomorrow. We have in the past complained about the late circulation of documents to hon. Members. In this case, I am one of those who received


his documents timeously, but nevertheless, I would not disagree with the request that the Committee be adjourned until next week or the week after.

Ms. Joyce Quin: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. I think that I have had enough points of order on this matter to enable me to deal with it. I understand the objections raised by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but he knows as well as anyone in the House that Standing Committees have considerable autonomy. It is for the Chairman to decide to determine the business of the Committee and how it should be conducted, and when the Committee should issue reports.

Mr. Peter Hardy: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would let me finish.
It is not for the Speaker to interfere in the work of Standing Committees, and there would be a great deal of objection if any Speaker did so. The hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) gave me a lot of supposition and hypotheses on which I cannot at this stage rule. I do not enter into what may happen if some eventuality takes place: the hon. Gentleman and the House would not expect me to do that.

Mr. Hardy: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am in no way challenging your ruling about the two Standing Order No. 20 applications, but will you consider a further aspect of the matter?
On Friday, the information that I received from the National Association of Colliery Overmen, Deputies and Shotfirers led me to telephone the office of the Minister for Energy to draw attention to the failure of British Coal to ensure that the assurances given in this House, and in the other place by the noble Lord Wakeham, were implemented. I was told that those in the office would come back to me, and I am still waiting.
I know that you will have looked, Madam Speaker, at the assurances given to right hon. and hon. Members of this House, but the assurances given by the noble Lord in the other place were rather more generous and helpful than those given here.
In view of that, if you have a further application for a debate of this type, will you take into account the inaction of the Department of Energy in providing the information that I was entitled to seek? Secondly, will you ensure that the assurances given by the noble Lord in the other place are properly taken into account in your decision on these matters?

Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I understand that you had to refuse the individual applications from my hon. Friends the Members for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) and for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) but if you put the two together, will you be able to consider that as a separate matter? If that strengthens the argument for a debate, I would be able to explain that the 4,500 mining jobs in my constituency that were lost in the 1980s have still not been replaced and that we have the highest level of unemployment in the country.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that hon. Members are not challenging my ruling. I look carefully at these matters before I come to the Chair.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I apologise for not having given you notice of this point of order, particularly as I am a member of the Chairmen's Panel. Could you tell me and the House whether you might consider, under the procedure for a breach of parliamentary privilege, a letter sent out by a senior management executive of British Coal to staff of British Coal, which said—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a long-standing Member, and I will advise him carefully. I cannot consider any privilege questions across the Floor of the House. I am aware of what the hon. Member is saying. If he will write to me about it, I will consider the matter and deal with it right away.

Mr. Winterton: I am happy to accept, and thank you for, that ruling, Madam Speaker.

Mr. Paul Flynn: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. May I call on you, as the defender of the rights of Back Benchers and as the final arbiter on the admissability of parliamentary questions, to rule on a point?
Yesterday, during question time, I received an answer from the Solicitor-General that had no connection with the question that I had asked. That was not unusual. Unique about it was the fact that the Solicitor-General said that there was no connection, and in reply to a supplementary question from me, he said:
That is the answer to the question that the hon. Gentleman should have asked".—[Official Report, 26 October 1992; Vol. 212, col. 770.]
That is an indication of the arrogance and petulance of Ministers. They are now determining the questions we should ask. That seems to represent an extension of the powers of the executive and a denial of the rights and privileges of Back Benchers.

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, as a persistent Back Bencher, will pursue that matter effectively.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I have listened carefully to your remarks responding to the requests concerning the two collieries in Wales and Yorkshire. I appreciate that you are not expected to reveal the reasons behind your rulings. Indeed, I have listened for the past 22 years to other occupants of the Chair saying precisely that. I do not suppose that we shall resolve that mystery today.
I fear that we are reaching a sorry pass when some of my hon. Friends are continually referring to the fact that various Ministers have made categoric statements about those 10 pits and we have reason to doubt the accuracy of those statements. We are not supposed to call Ministers liars or to say that they are deliberately misleading the House. Despite that, we are drawn to the conclusion that events are a lot like that.
I am glad to tell you, Madam Speaker, that there is a way out of the problem. The Government have scheduled for next Wednesday a debate on Maastricht, although they are as yet uncertain about the type of motion to table. My proposed solution would solve not only your difficulty but that of the Government, who should withdraw the


Maastricht debate and agree to our debating those 10 pits. That might enable us to save those pits and put the Ministers concerned on the line. They would then have to answer for what they have said in recent days. We might at the same time save several thousand miners' jobs.
I urge that negotiations take place immediately through the usual channels. The Government have got themselves into a big hole. The whole problem could be resolved in the way I have described.

Madam Speaker: I am always glad to have the understanding and help of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner). I wish that he could solve all my problems so easily.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to statutory instruments.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(3) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.).

CUSTOMS AND EXCISE

That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 8) Order 1992 (S.I., 1992, No. 2623) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

DANGEROUS DRUGS

That the draft Criminal Justice (International Co-operation) Act 1990 (Modification) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

ARMS AND AMMUNITION

That the draft Firearms Acts (Amendment) Regulations 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Hungary) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.

That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Europe Agreement establishing an Association between the European Communities and their Member States and the Republic of Poland) Order 1992 be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. —[Mr. Arbuthnot.]

Question agreed to.

Obscene Publications (Amendment) Bill

Dr. Robert Spink: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959.
I raise a subject of considerable concern to hon. Members in all parts of the House and to millions of people throughout the country. The unprecedented national concern is vividly illustrated by a petition signed by over 350,000 people which I shall be formally presenting to the House later today on behalf of the National Viewers and Listeners Association.
The current obscenity laws are not working properly. The Secretary of State called them "unsatisfactory" and the Minister of State described them as "inadequate." The right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) and the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) and many others have called for action now to remove deficiencies in the law. I shall show why the Government must take that action. My Bill will set that process in train, requiring areas for reform to be identified.
The law in the United Kingdom on obscenity and pornography is a patchwork quilt of provisions. We have different statutes dealing, for example, with broadcasting, videos, films, the theatre, sex shops and child pornography. This patchwork quilt of provisions is overlaid with a blanket called the Obscene Publications Act 1959, which started life as a ten-minute rule Bill introduced by the then Roy Jenkins.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Our Woy?

Dr. Spink: Yes, Woy the Wadical.
That measure is designed as a catch-all, defining the content of material which can be held to be obscene. The police use the 1959 Act to control the most severe kinds of material such as videos, child pornography and films. For some of those, other statutes are already in place. But for other kinds of material, the 1959 Act is the only statute that can be used. For example, it is the only restriction on the sale of books and magazines.
So it is clear that the 1959 Act is the keystone in the legislative arch of our obscenity and pornography law. The problem is that not only is the arch shaky and incomplete, but as a keystone, it is fundamentally loose. The source of that weakness lies essentially with the discredited "tendency to deprave and corrupt" test. That test is fast becoming impossible to prove and the authorities are reluctant to prosecute cases involving even the most extreme material, such as de Sade's "Juliette." The Government readily acknowledge the problem, so it is not tenable for them not to take action. It is the job of a caring Government, however difficult the task, to protect society and set sound standards. It is not the job of a private Member.
Hon. Members may recall the evil and vicious murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon common, and I am glad to see in his place supporting me the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Cox). The psychologists employed by the police investigating that murder believe that the man who carried out that brutal killing was addicted to reading pornography. It is clear that the Government must act.
Only this month we have seen the sad spectacle of Madonna, a confused and perverted woman, making millions by linking sex with violence in a way which


normalises that link and so puts decent women at risk. Ten years ago that could not have happened, but society's standards are slipping year by year as familiarity with pornography erodes our contempt of it.
Valerie Howarth of the now sadly impoverished Childline, which receives thousands of calls, reports:
Many distressed children say they are shown pornography and are asked to perform similar acts.
It is fortuitious that I should be moving my Bill so soon after the statement on child abuse that was made to the House earlier. Tim Harding, director of the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children, says:
Pornography is used to entice other youngsters into child sex abuse.
That is irrefutable evidence of the link between child pornography and the sex abuse of children. Superintendent Hames, head of New Scotland Yard's obscene publications squad, has called for tougher laws to enable him to fight what he calls
a rising tide of child pornography.
He goes on:
The vast majority of murderers, serial rapists and child molesters indulge in pornography.
I want their oxygen of depraved violent pornography cut off, and I make no apology for the imagery that I use.
If more evidence is needed, we can examine the situation in Oklahoma city, which clamped down on pornography in 1984. Since then, the crime of rape against women has fallen by over 20 per cent., whereas in the rest of the state, the pornography laws having remained unchanged, the incidence of rape increased by 20 per cent. We must fight to protect society from evil monsters who purvey pornography for profit. We must join my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and the hon. Member for Rochdale (Ms. Lynne) in denouncing sick people who claim that the mutilation, torture and murder of children and women for sexual gratification can somehow be acceptable as art or literature. That is not freedom of expression. It is rubbish.
For those who think that I am faint hearted, may I quote my gallant and hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), who said:
I spent about 15 years in the Army. I may have seen more pornography in barrack rooms than most hon. Members, and I can promise my hon. Friend that I have never seen anything in my life so depraved, disgusting and repulsive as this book." —[Official Report,. 2 July 1992; Vol. 210, c. 1068.]
The book was de Sade's "Juliette", which remains legal in our shops today. The Director of Public Prosecutions said that he could not proceed against that book. I want hon. Members to join me today to give the DPP the tools to do the job. My hon. Friend the Member for Medway (Dame P. Fenner) told us of her "revulsion and horror" at the book which, disgracefully, is even available in prison libraries as recreational reading for perverts and convicted sex offenders. How daft and irresponsible can we get? The Home Office must act on that now.
Scotland Yard called for action because the law is unworkable. Let us be clear about the fact that policemen and women were not saying, "The police don't want to enforce this law—it's in a muddle so get rid of it." On the contrary, the policy must see and deal with the victims of sexual attacks that are depicted and described in pornography. Those police officers are saying, "Please, please give us a law that works. We want to tackle the problem and get rid of that evil."
The Bill would require the Government formally to review the operation of all the legislation in that area and would bring forward provisions for the Government to change the law. It is, therefore, a paving Bill—quite fashionable these days. It encourages the Government to suggest alternative routes for reform, perhaps in a Criminal Justice Bill, with a free vote for the House. I am sure that all parties would co-operate closely and scrutinise such legislation.
The forefeiture of pornographic items, which dropped from more than 1 million in the early 1980s to 800,000 in 1987, was down to only 5,000 in the first six months of 1992. That is a drop to only 1 per cent. of previous forfeiture achievements in just one decade. Standards are slipping. The Bill would reveal such statistics and enable the House to monitor the police's ability to enforce the law. It would allow the House to consider new types of pornography such as so-called "education sex videos", European Community satellite broadcasts like "Red Hot Dutch" and new computer-based pornography.

Mr. Skinner: Is that the Common Market?

Dr. Spink: Yes, it is the Common Market.
By granting permission to introduce the Bill, the House will be demonstrating our demand for a properly conducted review of the law. We shall be saying that the Government should give clear leadership on that issue of deep public concern, listen carefully to the views of relevant parties, and regulate, monitor and report on the operation of the Obscene Publications Act 1959.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill order to be brought in by Dr. Robert Spink, Mrs. Ann Winterton, Mr. Michael Alison, Mr. Michael Stephen, Rev. Martin Smyth, Mrs. Margaret Ewing, Mr. Mark Wolfson, Mr. Donald Anderson, Mr. Andrew Robathan, Dame Peggy Fenner, Mr. Win Griffiths, Ms. Liz Lynne, Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman.

OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS (AMENDMENT)

Dr. Robert Spink accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Obscene Publications Act 1959: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 4 December and to be printed. [Bill 70.]

Orders of the Day — Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill (Allocation of Time)

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill:—

Orders of the Day — Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) The proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.

(3) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply.

Orders of the Day — Dilatory Motions

2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Order of proceedings

3.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government.

(2) The question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Conclusion of proceedings

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question that such of the amendments 14, 31, 55, 66 and 64 as remain be made to the Bill;
(d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Orders of the Day — Supplemental orders

5.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, he brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be

required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Saving

6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order.

Orders of the Day — Recommittal

7.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

I shall speak briefly, for one reason which the House will guess at if it studies closely the content of the timetable motion, and because the House will want to get on quickly with the discussion on the Bill, for which the motion provides.

It would be fair to say that the House has had a full opportunity to make itself familiar with the issues involved. The original Private Bill had its Second Reading in the other place as long ago as 23 February 1989. The Lord's Select Committee considered it for 13 sitting days as well as visiting Cardiff. Their Lordships gave the Bill a Third Reading on 12 July 1989. In the Commons, that Bill received a total of twenty-five and a half hours of debate. It was carried over at the end of the 1988–89 Session and given a Second Reading on 19 December 1989. It was carried over again at the end of the 1989–90 Session and, as opposed private business, was considered for sixteen and a half hours, including an all-night sitting. In addition, the Select Committee of this House considered the Bill for 27 sitting days, including three days of evidence-taking in Cardiff.

My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales made clear the Government's view that the Cardiff Bay barrage scheme will bring immense benefits to the local economy, and it is well known that it enjoys considerable support in Wales. Accordingly, when consideration of the Bill was adjourned, the Government brought forward the hybrid Bill that is presently before the House.

This Bill, which is the same for all practical purposes as the earlier Private Bill, has now had 14 days consideration by the Select Committee, including three days in Cardiff. In the House, it has had a total of twenty-one and a half hours debate. Committee stage took twelve and a half hours. Report stage was adjourned a week ago after five hours 20 minutes, when only the second group of amendments had been reached.

I set out all that in detail so that no one—in this House, in Cardiff or anywhere else—can be in any doubt that issues raised by the Bill have received the most thorough and detailed consideration. In the Government's view, the time has come to enable the House to reach a conclusion in an orderly way.

The timetable motion before the House therefore provides in paragraph 1 that the remaining stages of the Bill—Report and Third Reading—shall all be completed today, and that that will be achieved by bringing Report stage to an end at 9 pm, followed by Third Reading at 10 Pm.

In paragraph 4, the motion contains the usual provisions for questions to be put when those time limits are reached at 9 pm and 10 pm. I draw attention to


paragraph 4(c), which specifically ensures that amendments 14, 31, 55, 66 and 64—all of which the Government have made it clear they will accept—can he put as a single question at 9 pm if they have not already been decided by then.

I believe that, against the background of the lengthy consideration which the Bill and its predecessor have received, the arrangements in this timetable motion should be very much for the convenience of the House.

Mr. David Winnick: Will the Leader of the House come to a different viewpoint? As my hon. Friends who represent Welsh constituencies clearly believe that more time should be given to the Bill—I take their word that it is essential that that should be done—why do not the Government get themselves out of their difficulties by having a continued debate on the Bill next Wednesday? The Government would no doubt be united, however misplaced that unity would be. Bearing in mind how the Government are in total disarray and crisis over what will happen on 4 November, why not use that day to continue the debate on the Bill?

Mr. Newton: I think, Madam Deputy Speaker, that you might take it amiss if I were drawn into the discussion that the hon. Gentleman has initiated—

Mr. Winnick: I was only trying to be helpful.

Mr. Newton: I have observed the hon. Gentleman for many years in my various capacities, and I have learnt to take with some caution any claims from him of being helpful to the Government. I see no reason to abandon my caution today.
In my judgment, no one can pretend that the issues in and arising from the Bill have not been fully aired. The Bill and its predecessor have now had 62 hum of consideration on the Floor of the House and have been the subject of more than 40 sitting days of examination and evidence taking by the Select Committee. It is now right to make it possible for the House to complete these discussions and to make decisions. I commend the motion to the House.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before I call the next speaker, I must point out that we are debating the merits or otherwise of the timetable motion, and I hope that Members will not be drawn down the broad path to destruction by seeking to discuss the merits of the Bill itself.

5 pm

Mrs. Margaret Beckett: Despite the words of the Leader of the House, the House is rightly wary—indeed, downright suspicious—of Governments bearing guillotine motions. Today we are being asked to guillotine the rest of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, to curtail further debate and to enforce a timetable on the remaining stages.
It always worries me when I hear that the Government have such intentions. A certain cynicism born of experience does creep in. The Government have, after all, employed the same device more than 50 times since coming to office in 1979. It would be fair to say that the device has most often been employed on matters of considerable national importance. A glance at the record suggests that

the Government have guillotined through at least one crucial and often complicated piece of legislation almost every year since 1979.
In 1980, the Government guillotined a housing Bill, in 1981 a transport measure, in 1982 an employment Bill, in 1983 a telecommunications measure, in 1984 a Bill on the rates, in 1985 a local government measure, in 1986 a social security measure, in 1988 the poll tax, in 1989 water privatisation, in 1990 a Bill on community care and in 1991 a local government finance measure—not to mention several Bills last year as the tidying up for the election took place.
Even the most cursory glance at this list of measures that the Government have chosen to guillotine shows that curtailing parliamentary debate is not necessarily conducive to good government. Many of the issues on which debate was so summarily drawn to a close are precisely those on which, because they were not properly thrashed out or properly discussed, the policies have fallen apart, often with devastating consequences for the economy and the people of this country.
The list also exhibits a further worrying tendency. The reasons for which the Government have sought a guillotine have gradually and more blatantly evolved. There is a famous quotation by a constituency predecessor of mine, Sir William Harcourt, who claimed that he feared great constitutional measures would
be pushed through in a fortnight",
and who said:
all our safeguards are swept away".
Perhaps his fears are even more justified today than when he expressed them.
Many of the Bills which have been guillotined were of considerable importance, but the reason for their being guillotined has often given rise to much concern. The Leader of the House will recall as vividly as I do the guillotining of the Social Security Bill in 1986, when he and I were opposite numbers. The Bill was guillotined not because of undue delay or improper scrutiny—a properly timed and worked out programme for its scutiny was actually well under way. It was guillotined simply so that the Government could introduce extra chunks of the Bill —large sections of legislation of a highly controversial nature: the introduction of statutory maternity pay, for which little evidence or justification was offered, and of the industrial injuries scheme, with its devastating impact. Those measures were introduced after the guillotine had fallen; they had not been notified when the Bill had its Second Reading; they had not been open for debate; and by the operation of the guillotine, discussion of these issues in Committee was also circumscribed.
In this case, therefore, as in many of the other examples that I have adduced, the guillotine was introduced not to facilitate or to timetable parliamentary debate but to avoid the consequences of proper parliamentary scrutiny. Such avoidance has often had damaging results. One thinks of the poll tax Bill, with its net cost to the taxpayer of about £14 billion—it was guillotined through the House. If proper debate had been allowed, perhaps less damage would have been done to local government and the country's revenues, and perhaps fewer problems would have been created for the British people.
The Government failed to learn the lesson of the poll tax debacle. They even guillotined through the legislation that forms the basis of "son of poll tax", the council tax; and just as with its predecessor, problems with the council


tax are beginning to emerge. There are problems with the valuation that was drawn up, based as it was not only on a somewhat cursory examination but on a cursory examination based in turn on house prices in 1991—since when, as we all know, those prices have fallen in many parts of the country.
The number of guillotines and the pattern of their use make it clear that they are being used less and less to avoid filibustering and more and more for the convenience of the Government. Other issues highlight the fact that this may be the problem. A look at the parliamentary reference book shows that the expectation used to be that, once a guillotine had been brought in, a business committee would discuss the precise timing and manner of the business of the House. The assumption was that that would be the subject of discussion and agreement across the House. There seems to be an increasing tendency to avoid the necessity of consultation by the simple device of including in the guillotine motion the timing of the debates which would then ensue. It is clear that that timing is resulting in less and less chance to explore the issues in debate.
There is also an increasing tendency not only for the timing of the curtailment to be included in the motion—so there is no business committee or chance to discuss matters —but to take out of the overall time for debate the time spent discussing the guillotine motion itself. Overall, the freedom of manoeuvre that used to surround the guillotine system is being curtailed more and more sweepingly by the Government.
Today's guillotine is particularly unusual because of its timing, its relative abruptness and its circumstances, which are sufficiently odd for it to behove the House to be wary of the possible precedent being set. We are discussing a motion to guillotine a Bill that started life as a private Bill and, as the Lord President said, in that form was never brought to fruition in debate—primarily, as far as I can see, because the issues raised by the Bill were and remain issues of great local contention.
This is to some extent a matter for the people of Cardiff, but the implications go wider. Apparently unable to secure the passage of the Bill as a piece of private legislation, the Government chose to reintroduce it as a public Bill, part of their own programme. Now, as the Lord President said, because it affects private rights and interests, it has been defined as a hybrid Bill.

Mr. Ron Davies: Will my hon. Friend reflect on the fact that a commitment to the barrage was not included in the Conservative party's manifesto on which it fought the last election in Wales? On previous occasions, the Government have claimed that manifesto commitments now have a mandate and are therefore appropriate subjects of guillotines. I can assure the Secretary of State for Wales, who is advising the Leader of the House at this moment, that there was no mention of a barrage in the manifesto put to the people of Wales. Does not that invalidate the legitimacy of the guillotine motion?

Mrs. Beckett: That is an interesting point. It is yet another example of the arrogance of this Government. The election is still very recent. yet already, on a number of issues, including this one, steps have been taken that were not foreshadowed in the manifesto. The privatisation of

Scottish water is another good example, and the closure of the coalfields was not mentioned by Conservative Members in their campaign or manifesto. This is just another example of how the Government keep their programmes secret when an election campaign heaves into view.
It is extraordinary and more than a little incompetent on the Government's part that, having failed to see a Bill through the House when it was a private measure, when they had a majority of 100, they apparently feel now that, even with a majority of 20, they cannot see the measure through as a public Bill and part of their programme without introducing a guillotine motion.
It is not even as if we were late in the Session, with the Government's legislative programme under serious pressure or in disarray. That is one of the most worrying aspects of what is being done today. We are not even at the end of October. In a normal parliamentary year, we would not even have had the state opening of Parliament by now. We have far more than a full parliamentary year ahead of us, yet at this stage, for the Government's convenience, they seek to introduce a guillotine motion. Surely the case cannot be sustained that it would be impossible to resolve the issues that surround the Bill if debate were to continue without a guillotine motion.
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Government are tired of the Bill, that they are tired of all the agonised debate about whether its economic effects would be as its proponents hope or as its opponents fear. There has been debate about how damaging the Bill's environmental effects could be. The Government have set a significant precedent with the first extinction, as I understand it, of an entire site identified as one of special scientific interest.
The Government have tabled a guillotine motion not because that is the only way out for them but because they cannot be bothered with full parliamentary procedures even when there is plenty of time for them to be followed. They are showing a dangerous arrogance of which Parliament should be aware. That arrogance is not of theoretical significance only. This guillotine might set a direct precedent. I understand that it is estimated that 48 of the 130 estuaries in the United Kingdom are subject to some form of development plan. Some of the plans include proposals for marinas and others include barrages. No doubt each in their time will be, or would be, the subject of considerable local debate, as has the Bill. Such debate could be curtailed in future.
Moreover, the Lord President, when referring to the debates that have taken place on the Bill, talked primarily about its consideration when it was a private measure. We should today be regarding it solely as a public Bill. That is what should concern the House, and it is in its present form that the Government claim that there is a need for a guillotine.
A further precedent seems to be being set in terms of the time allowed for debate in Committee. On average, a Bill is considered in Committee for 80 to 100 hours before it is thought necessary to impose a guillotine. I understand that, as a public Bill, this measure has been considered in Committee for only twelve and a half hours. That, for a start, will considerably reduce the average time that a Bill is considered in Committee.
I understand that some of the matters raised in debates are unresolved as yet. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred to some of these


issues in the House only last week. There is the call for independent assessment of the environmental impact of the proposal and the legal implications of insufficient scrutiny. Technical studies of how to deal with the groundwater problem—a source of anxiety from the start —are not yet complete or available. There was the late delivery of an updated economic assessment of the impact of the scheme. All these matters have given my hon. Friends cause for concern. The economic arguments and the economic case for the scheme caused great anguish, given the background against which the state of the local economy must be judged.
Britain is in its third year of' recession, the longest recession that we have had. Officially, unemployment is nearly 3 million. It is acknowledged even by the Department of Employment that the true level is over 4 million if those not receiving benefit though looking for work and those on Government schemes rather than in work are included. Our trade balance is deteriorating, and business failures and home repossessions are at record levels.
The picture is the same in Wales. In Wales alone, almost 4,500 actions for mortgage default were begun in the first half of the year. Over 1,800 businesses failed in the first nine months of the year, more than a third more than the failures last year, and almost 130,000 people are out of work, more than twice as many as in 1979 when the Government came to power. There is all that before the devastation that coalfield closures and others will bring. Small wonder that fear of unemployment is rife in many areas. Against that background, it is natural that anxiety that there should be proper scrutiny and secure development should run high.
What is certain is that the Bill has from the start been the subject of great local contention. It has aroused strong differences of view. It is equally clear that the danger of setting damaging precedents cannot be overlooked, especially when we are faced with a Government who are so blinkered and short-sighted in the policies that they devise and so arrogantly and casually incompetent in their execution. I fear that the Leader of the House has not convinced us, the Opposition, that we would be wise to risk the precedent that he invites us to set. That is why I shall be advising my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the motion.

Mr. Alex Carlile: I shall make only a brief contribution to the debate. Its brevity will be entirely consistent with your strictures when it started, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I respect some of the opinions that have been expressed strongly by Labour Members, although it is right to say that they do not all agree about the barrage. Indeed, why should they necessarily agree on the issue, which in essence should not be a party political one? Within my party, there are disagreements in Wales on whether the barrage is overall a good thing or a bad thing. Many of us, such as myself, strongly support the activities and aspirations of the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds and other organisations.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Carlile: No. I wish to be brief.
We support the society and other organisations that are concerned with the environment. On the other hand, some of us believe that it is foolish to spit in the eye of important economic progress.
I have in mind an old adage—it is one of the first things that anyone who joins my part of the legal profession is told. They are the wise words of one of the great advocates of the past, who said to a pupil, "You are paid not for your doubts but for your opinions."
It is my view that guillotines are entirely inappropriate in many of the situations to which the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), referred. We have been given several examples of politically contentious legislation that the Government drove through the House by introducing guillotine motions. In that way they sought to avoid important political debate, and that is illegitimate.
No one could sensibly say—it defies common sense to make the suggestion—that every issue relating to the Bill has not been fully debated. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that I believe every snail, slug and newt in Cardiff bay feels that it has been fairly represented by one, if not more than one, of my colleagues on the Labour Benches who represent seats in the Cardiff area. As a matter of principle, once an issue has been fully debated, as the barrage has over several years, we should come to a decision. It is common sense to decide upon it, and it is time to decide upon it. I shall be advising my colleagues to support the motion in the unusual circumstances of tonight's debate.

Mr. Alun Michael: I cannot regard the contribution of the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) as a helpful one, but it told us something about the Liberal party.

Mr. Carlile: The hon. Gentleman is in favour of the barrage.

Mr. Michael: I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will contain himself.
As I have said, his speech told us more about the Liberal party than about the Bill or the motion. There was disagreement between Liberals when there was more than one Welsh Liberal Member in the House. What we heard from the hon. and learned Gentleman sounded to me rather like the one remaining Welsh Liberal Member disagreeing with himself about the value of the Bill.
We can be clear that the hon. and learned Gentleman is just about 50 per cent. against the guillotine motion— well, perhaps he is 51 per cent. for it and 49 per cent. against it. We know that the Liberals will drive on to either side of the political road, or both sides, if they perceive an advantage to be gained in so doing. The hon. and learned Gentleman's contribution to the debate is typical because, in the Cardiff area—in Grangetown—local Liberals tried to capitalise by opposing the barrage. As a result, they were hammered in the local elections, as they deserved to be.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and I have argued in the interests of our constituents and the people of Cardiff—not of the slugs that apparently prompted the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery to take his principled stand and to lead his tattered army through the Lobby tonight.

Dr. Kim Howells: I am concerned about the reference to newts because I do not believe that there are any in Cardiff bay. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman was not referring to ladies and gentlemen of an alcoholic persuasion who stop to rest at the pier head.

Mr. Michael: I am sure that the hon. and Learned Gentleman's concern for endangered species is merely fellow feeling on his part. The Liberals are pretty much an endangered species.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. One endangered species are hon. Members who do not stick to the point.

Mr. Michael: I stand abashed, Madam Deputy Speaker. I regret being led down that path by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells).
My opposition to the guillotine motion is partly prompted by my regret at missing the opportunities that would otherwise exist for Welsh Members of Parliament to gather to debate the Bill late into the night on many occasions. It has aroused great interest also among right hon. and hon. Members representing seats in other parts of the country.
The Government are not proposing a guillotine for the health of right hon. and hon. Members, or to protect my hon. Friends the Members for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) and for Cardiff, West from the threat of laryngitis, or because they want to give the Bill proper but speedy consideration.
The development area falls within my constituency, but the Bill's effects go wider. The Minister was right to say that the barrage enjoys considerable support across a wide area of Cardiff and south Wales, and has enjoyed support in the House from hon. Friends representing constituencies in Newport, Swansea, and other areas. Support for the Bill has also been demonstrated in elections. However, that is no reason to introduce a guillotine and to rush consideration of reasoned amendments tabled by my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. Allowing the axe to fall at 9 o'clock will not allow proper consideration of important amendments and must be resisted.
The Government's earlier mishandling of the Bill created an element of rush at this late stage. It was originally introduced as a private Bill, and I pay tribute to South Glamorgan county councillors for that. In the second stage, the Bill was introduced jointly by South Glamorgan county council and the development corporation. The action of South Glamorgan councillors in the first stage of investment—in putting money where their mouths were by building the new county hall at Atlantic wharf—demonstrated great bravery and a willingness to work through the processes of the House to achieve the desired end of a barrage Bill.
South Glamorgan had to produce a private Bill because of Welsh Office decisions, and many of the problems leading to tonight's guillotine were a consequence of that original mistake by the Welsh Office. The weaknesses of the private Bill system have been totally exposed. I hope that that will prove terminal for the procedure—at least in respect of contentious measures rather than any enjoying widespread agreement. The private Bill procedure is as unfair to the Bill's supporters as it is to its opponents.
The free discussion and lack of direction on both sides of the House at the private Bill stage engendered many problems, which haunted the hybrid Bill when it came before the House as a public measure.
Conservative Members have also failed to progress the Bill before now. The Leader of the House mentioned the series of occasions on which it has been debated, as if that were a failing on the part of the Opposition. The failure is that of the Government's business managers, who let down Welsh Office Ministers when they sought to battle on with the Bill. They must take a large share of the blame, rather than argue blatantly for a guillotine motion tonight.
The public Bill has been cursed by problems engendered by the private Bill. I am as keen as anyone to see the Bill on the statute book. The barrage will improve the environment, increase employment, and enhance the economy in an area that extends beyond my constituency. It will provide housing—particularly social housing— which will be of benefit to people and to communities in my constituency and beyond. Instead of expressing fury at our initiative in taking the debate to such lengths, Conservative Members should compliment us on the comradely fashion in which we have discussed the measure.
Among the positive amendments that should be properly debated tonight is amendment No. 13:
At least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of any works, the Development Corporation shall consult South Glamorgan County Council on the proposed pattern of traffic movements during the construction period, including the hours of operation. At least 6 weeks prior to the commencement of works the Development Corporation shall publish proposals, amended in the light of those consultations, for a 2 week period of public consultation.
There will be an element of disruption during the construction. We have seen that with the building of the new road in south Cardiff, which considerably inconvenienced my constituents in Butetown and Grangetown. The guillotine motion does not discriminate as to the time that can be spent on debating each group of amendments. That amendment should be seriously considered by Ministers and receive a proper response.
Another amendment, which the Government accept, will allow for local authority representation on the advisory committee and another provides for the development corporation to report properly on its actions to the advisory committee. Those limited but important issues should not go undebated because of the Government's desperation to go home early tonight. Even if a guillotine is needed—and I do not accept that—the motion goes over the top in so severely truncating debate. Another failing of the motion is that it gives no fixed time for debate on each group of amendments.
As we all know, unless the terms of a guillotine motion are careful and measured, ensuring at least some time for debate on each group of amendments, things become extremely messy. Moreover, an excessively truncated debate may lead to the Government's intentions being overlooked. Let me place on record my opposition to this ill-thought-out motion: the Leader of the House has let down his Ministers as well as the House.

Dr. Kim Howells: It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael). He knows a great deal about this subject, and I share his concerns.
I agree, for instance, that there should be affordable housing in an area that contains the greatest concentration of deprived wards in Wales and, possibly, in the United Kingdom as a whole. Cardiff badly needs the proposed


developments. I also feel that we need further time in which to debate whether the £150 million which is to be spent on the construction of the barrage will deliver value for money in terms of jobs.
Following the events of the past 10 days or so, that time is more valuable than ever. The urgency of the position is clear to those of us who live in the hinterland of Cardiff —the coalfield area. A shadow lies across the question of whether we shall receive value for the money that the Welsh Office is allocating to quangos. I have searched the text of the motion in vain for some indication of the value for money that has been provided by the sums spent so far on creating jobs in Wales. Given the nature of the motion, I fear that we are unlikely to extract a figure from the Secretary of State or the Under-Secretary.
We need to know, for example, whether a figure is attached to the creation and protection of jobs in Wales over the past three or four years. The minutes of evidence provided by the Public Accounts Committee for a report entitled "Creating and safeguarding jobs in Wales" suggests that the cost of creating or safeguarding a job is about £1,700. That is a very small amount. According to a Welsh Office report entitled "The Government's expenditure plans 1992–93 to 1994–95", the figure is about £3,500. We should bear that sum in mind when considering whether to allocate £150 million to a single large civil construction project.
I am not opposed to the allocation of such sums to projects like this, and I do not for a moment denounce the efforts of hon. Members on both sides of the House to push for a scheme that could create many jobs. I am simply arguing that this may not be the best way of spending a shrinking public-expenditure resource. I shall be interested to learn whether the Secretary of State has any news for us yet about whether the £150 million will be taken from the overall cake of public expenditure on Wales.

Mr. David Hanson: The proposals affect the economy of north Wales as well as that of south Wales. In the past 10 days, a moratorium and potential closure have been announced for the Point of Ayr colliery in my constituency: 500 mining jobs may be lost, as well as many more jobs connected with mining. Does not the guillotine motion deprive many of us of an opportunity to explore the possibility of unemployment in north Wales? The colliery closure will hit my constituents especially badly.

Dr. Howells: I thank my hon. Friend for that invaluable intervention. We have been given the excuse many times that the barrage will bring jobs to our constituents—for example, to my constituents in Taff-Ely and Pontypridd, from which many people travel to work in Cardiff. We have been told that we should be grateful for this development. The Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary, however, would be hard pressed to argue that it will benefit my hon. Friend's constituents by creating jobs. If we are serious—as I believe the Secretary of State has been on many occasions—in saying that we in Wales should be allowed more independence in deciding how sums allocated to us are spent, we must address ourselves to my hon. Friend's question.
Perhaps even more important is the involvement of a constitutional issue. In such a short debate, we may not be able to discuss how it can be decided whether a quango —in this instance, the Cardiff Bay development corporation, which the Welsh Office has appointed

without consulting those likely to be affected, in the valley constituencies as well as in and around Cardiff—is doing a good job, and will spend its money well. How can we come back at the corporation and question its decisions? That is an important question, and the construction of the barrage lies at the heart of it.
Some of us are keen for the development to take place in our constituencies, but we do not want decisions to be made as they are in Cardiff. Often, it seems to be a case of "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" in the old boy network and what in Welsh we call the crachach. Such people appear to be members of almost every quango in Wales, and almost all of them live in castles around Usk and have double-barrelled names—although Lieutenant Colonel Inkin, a dynamic individual in many ways, is an exception to that last rule.
Many of us feel strongly that an issue of constitutional importance cannot be dealt with properly in the short time allocated to a guillotine motion. I hope that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary can tell us whether we are to see the institutional changes that so many of us have demanded. Such changes would allow the people of Cardiff, and the people of Wales in general, to debate these matters much more coherently and comprehensively.
The quango that we are discussing has access to £33 million of public money this year alone. That is an enormous sum. I have talked to my constituents about what could be done with £33 million. We could, for example, revive the town centre of Pontypridd, which now contains 15 or 16 empty shops. Pontypridd is a market town, which has traditionally drawn people from the Rhondda, Cynon and Merthyr valleys to its famous market. Now it is dying on its feet for lack of vital investment.
I hope that the Secretary of State and his colleagues do not describe this demeaningly as the politics of envy. The people in my constituency will be very glad to see the developments. I hope that we shall benefit from them. However, when they cannot obtain £5 million to complete a road system that would get rid of the congestion that is such a black spot in Pontypridd, they then see that £150 million is granted for the building of a dam across a filthy river—filthy because no investment can be obtained to clean up the sewage works that lie upstream from Pontypridd. These are constitutional as well as financial issues which I hope will be discussed within the terms of the guillotine motion.
Many infrastructure jobs are desperately required in Cardiff, Newport and Swansea, as well as in the valleys of south Wales. We—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but it seems to me that he is now dealing with other matters. We should be considering the merits or otherwise of the guillotine motion that is before us.

Dr. Howells: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for that guidance. I am trying to point out that in terms of the guillotine motion there will not be sufficient time to discuss its important ramifications for all those interested in the scheme who live outside the barrage area. If the guillotine motion has any relevance, it is relevant to my constituency. It is a neighbouring constituency to Cardiff, through which the two rivers run that are to be, both literally and metaphorically, dammed.
Very many jobs need to be done in the capital city of Wales, as well as in our various constituencies. They include the repair and renewal of some of the worst housing stock throughout Europe. Many of my hon. Friends will want to draw attention to that fact. Many of us believe that if we are to benefit from the Cardiff bay barrage, if and when it is built, we must have a proper road and rail infrastructure to enable our constituents to travel to Cardiff to work. The A470 is an extremely dangerous road because of traffic congestion.
The rail network is in extreme danger because of the closure notices that have been served on the collieries. The rail network serves Cardiff bay directly. My constituents would think it remiss of me if I did not raise that issue and if I did not say that the guillotine means that there will not be sufficient time for my colleagues and me to express our great concern about whether we shall be able to enjoy whatever advantages may arise from the Cardiff bay barrage.

Mr. Michael: I support my hon. Friend's point. There is also the question of communications within the city of Cardiff and communications between the centre of Cardiff and the Cardiff bay barrage area. My hon. Friend made a telling point, not least because the present state of the railways, such as the Penarth to Cardiff railway link, is appalling. None of us can depend upon it when we wish to travel around the area.

Dr. Howells: I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. That is precisely what I am talking about in terms of the guillotine motion. Without discussion of that issue, we shall discuss this great civil engineering project in the abstract. We are not placing it in context. Furthermore, we are not explaining to people why hon. Members are so angry about the fact that a quango that is answerable to nobody is allowed to allocate such huge sums of money to this project while the rest of us have to settle for the crumbs that fall off the edge of the resource table.
The question of what we do about cleaning up the two rivers that flow into the lake which is to be created by the barrage is of great importance in terms of the guillotine motion. It is impossible to discuss it in the short period of time available. We need answers from the Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary of State to the question of what they intend to do about forcing Welsh Water to get on with the job of cleaning up the sewage sites further upstream. I live right on the edge of one river. I am sick of seeing the filth that flows down it. The Secretary of State for Wales and the Under-Secretary of State have not provided a good answer in any of our debates to the question of how they intend to clean up those rivers, which would enable us to turn our town centres round again to face the rivers.
If we were given a fraction of the £150 million that has been allocated to the barrage scheme, the valleys could begin to do that. I know that the Secretary of State and the Under-Secretary of State feel strongly about the issue, but I should like them to say what action they intend to take that would allow us to start doing that in the valleys.
Another question that is at the heart of the guillotine motion is, what is to happen when, and if, work on the project begins? That question must be discussed now; we shall be able to discuss it at no other time. My hon. Friend

the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth drew attention to amendment No. 13. He knows as well as I do that we have not had a straight answer to the question of where the materials for this great project are to come from. Will they come from the limestone rim at the southern end of the coalfield that occupies such a large part of my constituency? That would lead to the expansion of quarrying in the area, coupled with dangerous lorry movements. It is not simply a question, as the amendment says, of discussing and negotiating with South Glamorgan county council. There must be negotiations with Mid Glamorgan county council.
The Conservative Benches are empty. Conservative Members are throbbing with indifference. Since they are always proclaiming their love for Wales, I should have loved to see some of our nationalist colleagues present, but not one of them is here. Apart from the occupants of the Treasury Bench, no Conservative Members and no nationalist Members are here. We never see our nationalist colleagues in these debates. They usually stay away from controversial issues. I have not even heard them talk lately about the nuclear power stations issue.
I oppose the motion. I know that many of my colleagues agree with me. I only wish that some of those who sit on the Conservative Benches would do the same.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I support what was said by the Deputy Leader of the Opposition and shadow Leader of the House, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett).
Many of those who have spoken have already made the point that those who arrange the business of the House seem to have developed the expectation that during any 12-month period at least one day will be devoted to the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It has almost become a fixed part of the parliamentary calendar. There is Budget day; there is the autumn statement; there is the Loyal Address and the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill at one of its stages—Second Reading, Report, or Third Reading—either as a private Bill or as a public Bill. Whatever else happens, there must be the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill in any parliamentary Session.
People may think that it is all going to come to an end tonight and that this is the last that we shall see of the Bill, but, despite the timetable motion which guillotines proceedings on the Bill, I hope that the Minister replying the debate will not be prevented from making clear whether that is so or whether the Bill will be back again next year. I understand from some of the local authorities concerned that there is a strong possibility that the Bill will be in a different form when it is introduced in another place as the Government accept that the Bill is already defective due to the effluxion of time.
Another reason why timetable motions should be opposed is when the Government accept, as I understand is the case in this instance, that the Bill in question is defective. They will therefore have to alter it in another place and we shall have to consider Lords amendments some time next year. The Government owe us an explanation as to why they are timetabling a Bill which they know will have to be altered for various technical reasons. I may be wrong, but that is what I understand


from one of the two local authorities involved. Timetabling a Bill that the Government know to be defective is a dubious procedure.
Are there any precedents for timetabling or, to use the common parlance, guillotining a hybrid Bill? I understand that this is the first time that it has been done, although there is nothing to prevent it: if the Government want to ram through legislation willy-nilly, they can do so. It behoves us, however, to stop and think about whether a hybrid Bill should be guillotined. The rights to petition Parliament on a hybrid Bill are protected, but nobody to whom I have spoken is aware of any previous hybrid Bill having been guillotined.
I freely inform the Government, in case they do not know, that a hybridised Bill—the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries (Amendment) Bill —was indeed guillotined, but that Bill was declared hybrid by Examiners three quarters of the way through its parliamentary consideration, whereas the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill has been hybrid from the outset. I understand that today's motion sets a precedent; we should consider whether it is a healthy precedent.
I hope that Ministers will say whether they are aware of other hybrid bills being guillotined. We believe that the motion is a thoroughly unhealthy development because individual citizens will lose their rights. Earlier, I asked the Minister to say whether the Bill will be changed when it is presented in another place, because if it is, it will create a new class of petitioners against it.
"Petitioners" sounds a rather cold term, but they are ordinary individuals who do not have the resources to pay accountants, lawyers and parliamentary agents to advise them. They can be small business people, householders or anyone whose way of life is directly affected by a Bill. Will their rights be curtailed if we accept the precedent of guillotining a hybrid Bill? We must think carefully about that before agreeing to it, and I hope that Ministers are taking careful notes to enable them to respond properly.
The Leader of the House—who, sadly, is no longer in his place—in making a raw arithmetical calculation said that the justification for the motion was simply that, in its different forms, the Bill had been debated for many hours. The 1988 Bill was first presented in another place, considered here and then dropped and converted into a Government Bill. That simple, raw arithmetical calculation implies that the Bill is exactly the same now as when it was introduced in another place in November 1988, but we know that, as people have come to learn more about it and its consequences, it has altered enormously. The design of the barrage and our knowledge of its side effects have altered, and legal judgments in the European Court of Justice directly affecting the status of the site of special scientific interest have been made since the original debates.
The mathematical justification for the guillotine advanced by the Leader of the House is irrelevant. It means nothing because new material is continually emerging, and hon. Members whose constituencies are directly affected by the barrage must have time to do their jobs as parliamentary representatives properly. I will give just three examples of recent completely new information —some of it emerged as late as last Friday—which is material to our consideration of the Bill but which is in danger of being precluded by the motion.
Last Friday, the Treasury minute in Cmnd. 2074 was published and made available in the Vote Office as a

preparatory step towards the Public Accounts Committee's debate tomorrow. It refers to the parliamentary accountability of bodies such as the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The corporation, as has been hinted at already by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells), is almost unique as a non-departmental public body or quango. It is the only quango with a large budget but almost no parliamentary accountability.
In the Treasury minute to the Public Accounts Committee, the Government said that they intended to do something about that. I hope that, before we agree to a motion to confer enormous enhanced spending powers on the Cardiff Bay development corporation, we shall have a clear sign from the Government as to how they intend to strengthen parliamentary control over the way in which the corporation spends its money. It would be wrong for us to pass the motion without the Government coming clean about what they intend to do to fill the corporation's black hole of parliamentary non-accountability.
Conclusion (xii) of the Treasury minute said:
the Comptroller and Auditor General is able to identify control weaknesses of this type and bring them directly to the attention of Parliament as he did in
the case of the Development Board for Rural Wales. In response, the Government said that the Comptroller and Auditor General
should have rights of access to the body's"—
in other words, the quango's—
papers and records so that he may bring to Parliament's attention, whenever he considers it appropriate, any material departures from the requirements of regularity and propriety.
He cannot do that with the Cardiff Bay development corporation. It is the only big-spending quango where the Comptroller and Auditor General cannot bring to the attention of the House any departure from the rules of regularity and propriety. The Government further said:
These rights are frequently provided by statute".
Yet for some strange reason the Cardiff Bay development corporation was exempted from the rule. "Sponsor departments"—the Welsh Office—
will seek to secure such rights in cases where they do not exist at present.
We want to know how the Secretary of State for Wales intends to provide, by statute or in an undertaking from the Dispatch Box today, the normal degree of parliamentary accountability for the Cardiff Bay development corporation before the corporation is given the enormously increased powers to spend money and to commit itself to a massive increase in expenditure and powers over the development area with all the side effects which spread into adjoining constituencies such as Cardiff, West. We must know exactly how Parliament will maintain the normal standards of parliamentary accountability over the increased spend. I hope that we can do something about that tonight, as we found out about it only last Friday. That is why the timetable motion is so dangerous.
In the late stages of the summer recess, we heard that the development corporation had proposed a new method by which to help to keep the groundwater levels down. The water will be pumped out, so if it is 15 ft below the surface now, it can be maintained at that level. That is known as de-watering wells. We know only that, by the time the Bill is in Committee in the other place, the corporation will have carried out field tests in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr.


Michael). The tests will be carried out using a couple of wells and the corporation will present the results to the Committee in another place next February.
Is this procedure good enough for the House? We are being asked to pass a timetable motion on a Bill for which a key item of evidence will not be available until next February. As the Member of Parliament for Cardiff, West I do not feel that that is satisfactory and I am extremely unhappy about the timetable motion on that account. There is no hon. Member for Cardiff, West in another place. If the job is not done in this House, it will not be done at all. There are estimable people in the other place and I do not criticise them, but there is no local constituency representation. It therefore falls to us to ensure that we have the right amount of information before we pass the Bill. That information must be explored across the House, which cannot be done if the timetable motion is passed.
Should the Government try to timetable a hybrid Bill which has specific effects on, for example, 6,000 houses and which has side effects on small business premises? Timetable motions are dangerous. They are unprecedented and doubly dangerous for hybrid Bills and should be opposed. I am glad that we are opposing the motion today. New material has just been presented and we have simply not had the opportunity to discuss it properly. The timetable motion will curtail, if not remove altogether, our ability to discuss that evidence, depending on how much time we have left for amendment and debate.
What will the impact of waterlogged soils be on health and domestic heating, with the cooling effect of an impounded lake? That question has come up only recently. It was first touched on in evidence to the Committee, but it was not in a validated form. The paper given by Dr. Max Wallis and Mr. Munro at last month's European environment conference in Nottingham raised all manner of questions which we have not yet had a chance to discuss. We may or may not be able to come back to those questions, depending on how draconian are the pressures on later debate. That, too, makes me unhappy.
As we may have a chance to discuss the matter later, I will touch only briefly on it today. The broad thesis of the two academics is that domestic heating costs will rise in the area adjoining the lake because the lake will cause a drop in temperature of 2 deg C for long periods of the year. They suggest that infant mortality rates will rise and that general morbidity, in terms of people with chest problems, will be exacerbated. Through creating additional fogs and mists, the lake may create additional traffic accident risks.
The question of whether that thesis is true is material to the Bill. The Minister may shake his head; that is fair enough. He may have a point of view and he may be well briefed. Then again he may not be—I do not know. We may find out, but with a timetable motion it is far more difficult to find out.
I can only briefly give the House the view of the National Rivers Authority, which was first told of the thesis following the publication of the original document this February. Lord Crickhowell, who will have some responsibility in the other place as chairman of the National Rivers Authority, wrote to Mr. Munro this July saying the NRA had taken the responsible attitude of asking for independent validation of the Wallis-Munro

report given in evidence to the Committee in February and then published as an occasional paper of the University of Wales in the same month.
The NRA needed to know whether the two academics were a pair of cranks talking through the top of their heads or whether they were good scientists who had simply come up with a different approach to the side effects of the barrage. I shall read briefly from the letter from Lord Crickhowell to Mr. Monro of 2 July—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Does the letter refer to the timetable motion? If it does not, it is not in order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a point which he wants answered on Report. I hope that he will not pursue it further now and that he will move on to some other points.

Mr. Morgan: You may, Mr. Deputy Speaker, be willing to accept that I have today discussed the timetable motion with Dr. Wallis, one of the scientists. That is how I got a copy of the letter: he supplied me with it through the wonder of the modern fax machine. The NRA said in its letter of 2 July:
We employed a well-respected independent consultant, Middlesex University (formerly Polytechnic) Flood Hazard Research Centre earlier this year to consider your results. They concluded that the statistical analysis was sound and the relationship between the factors"—
that is, the waterlogged soil, and the rises in infant mortality, in morbidity and in traffic accidents—
appears to be confirmed.
That is the basis on which we should not curtail debate by a timetable motion.
We should be saying that the thesis opens up an area which Parliament must consider without the restriction of a guillotine. It would be wrong for us to say, "Guillotine the discussion because we know everything there is to know about the Bill." Perhaps the Leader of the House, who has just returned to his place, will remind us of the arithmetic. It has been said that there have been plenty of hours of discussion and that nothing new has been discovered, so the guillotine is a fully justified method by which to bring what has become a repetitive debate to a close. That simply is not true in light of the letter which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, were good enough to allow me to read out as it was so obviously in order.
The letter showed that, at least for the NRA, a first look at the results by its independent validation group at Middlesex university seemed to show that there was something in them. We as parliamentarians should say, "The evidence was not fully considered on Second Reading because nobody knew about it; should we now consider it?" The answer is obviously yes.
The Government now have something to prove. They could say that they accept the broad thrust of the evidence, as the NRA seems to be doing following the validation of the thesis—in which case Parliament needs to consider at length the possibility of extending the right of compensation. We have tabled amendments on that, although they are last-minute amendments because of the lateness with which the information has come to light.
Should there be a right to compensation for people living in the affected area whose houses will be colder? Should their additional domestic heating costs be paid by the development corporation? We do not want to tell people, "Do this through your solicitor: go to the courts and sue." The whole principle on which we have discussed the Bill for the past four years has been that people should


not need to go to court for compensation for the damaging side effects on their peaceful occupation of their houses or business properties.
Compensation must be built into the Bill. We must debate the matter thoroughly on the Floor of the House to ensure than any rights that people should have because they will be adversely affected are covered in the Bill and properly considered so that no one feels that he has had a bad shake from Parliament. People should be able to feel that they had a reasonable opportunity to petition against the Bill and that, if they could not petition, we have done our job as constituency Members in bringing matters to the attention of the House and screwing some reply from the Ministers responsible, however reluctant they may have been to give a reply. We should ensure that any right to compensation which may occur in later years is clearly defined by Parliament so that people know what the price of the barrage will be in terms of side effects and in terms of the compensation for which we must legislate.
That point is even more important in light of the problems about the Barnett formula. If the Secretary of State for Wales has less access to funds, it is all the more important that we should tie him down, before the Bill leaves the House, to a clear understanding in negotiations with the Treasury. He must understand the true price of the barrage. He must know how much it will cost in terms of civil engineering and construction, and he must understand how much the compensation bill is likely to be.
Will that need to be extended to cover domestic heating costs and claims from people who say that they have been made more ill by the increased cold and damp or have had a car crash in a November mist caused by evaporation from the impounded lake? These matters must be put on record. We need to know whether the Minister will say, "No, the right will not be extended," or whether he will be willing to find the extra money to extend compensation rights in respect of matters which have come to our attention so late in our consideration of the Bill.
Will the Minister be covering another difficulty which arises now that the Bill is a public Bill? Certain matters are not covered in debate unless we specifically raise them, and I do not know whether we shall have the opportunity today to cover fully the agreements which were explicit in the private Bill but are implicit in the public Bill. If we allow the timetable motion through, our debate on consideration will be curtailed. I therefore ask what has happened to the explicit agreements in the private Bill which have become side agreements in the public Bill.
If we accept the guillotine motion, discussion of what has happened to the side agreement between the development corporation and Wiggins Teape, the paper-making company in my constituency at which 220 jobs are to be lost on 27 November, may be squeezed out. That company is in an area which was directly covered by a specific set of clauses in the private Bill but is now covered by side agreements. It is now proposed to remove the last paper-making machine in that plant. I want to be sure that, if the guillotine motion is accepted, we shall have the opportunity to raise that matter later or that the Minister will write to me to cover the point.
I now have no way of getting access to the information that I require. Under the original agreement, the development corporation would have paid for the company's additional water treatment costs, but as the present agreement is private, I no longer have access to the information. Is it true that the company is being paid

compensation by the development corporation in respect of the extensive water treatment required if one is to manufacture paper at a paper mill? I find that extremely worrying, because I am to lose the mill, which is the guts of the plant.
The lake will convert certain industrial plants, including that paper mill—hitherto a coastal plant able to discharge treatment water into a tidal reach—into inland plants and unless the development corporation has a duty to pay additional water treatment costs, that will render its position less sensible than at present. Negotiations under the 90-day requirement laid down in the Employment Protection (Consolidation) Act 1975, about which we have heard so much in the past seven days, are currently under way. The period expires on 27 November. I hope that we shall have adequate time to consider this matter, or that the Minister will agree to write to me about it.
The Government have made some almighty mistakes in trying to rush the Bill through, and we are worried that they are rushing it again today without our having adequate time to discuss all the new material. The Government foolishly sought to ignore the rights of Welsh Members to serve on the Standing Committee. I fear that they are going down the same alley today, saying that the swifter our consideration of the Bill, the better it will be. We know the Government's record of incompetence—and the swifter our consideration of the Bill, the greater will be the Government's mistakes.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I oppose the guillotine motion—indeed, I was amazed that the Government bothered to think of using such a device during a period in which they are not under any pressure to push major Bills through the House.
The Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill will go down in history as a Bill whose passage through Parliament has been consistently mismanaged. The Government's only chance of getting the Bill enacted now is to introduce a guillotine motion. On two crucial occasions during the lifetime of the two Bills, the Government have not even been able to count on their own supporters to be in the Lobbies. The present motion represents a last-minute attempt to try to get the Bill out of the way at a time when such action is least easy to justify.
Let us go back to the fateful night in March when the private Bill had to be withdrawn. The present Bill was then introduced. Since then, the Government have been so worried about the amount of time available to deal with parliamentary business that they gave us a summer recess at least two weeks longer than any recess in the last decade. Let us be generous: we need at least a week to consider the Bill more fully. Could not the Government have seen that in July? Why could not the House have continued to sit for another week then, or returned a week earlier? We should have been quite prepared to come back to debate these fundamental issues.
In explaining his reasons for reluctantly taking the guillotine to the Bill, the Leader of the House said that it had been fully debated over a long period. In fact, the circumstances in which the Bill has been debated have been shifting like the sands of the Sahara when the Harmattan is blowing. We shall have barely two hours to consider more than 90 amendments. What sort of discussion will we


be able to have? We shall hardly have time to touch on some important issues that have changed the circumstances surrounding the Bill's introduction.
Let me give an example: we were presented with the updated report on the number of jobs that would be created by the barrage on the very day of our original debate. Yet now that we have had a chance to look into that new report in a little more detail, the Government have introduced the guillotine to preclude the possibility of a proper debate. To my mind, the authors of that report could do with at least an afternoon's grilling in Committee concerning the circumstances surrounding the updated assessment they have made of the jobs benefit of the barrage.
The report refers to a mid-October assessment. However, it is not entirely clear whether, on the day before the report was published, the authors made a final conclusion about the jobs benefits or whether that matter had been under consideration over the summer. It is not clear whether any account was taken of black Wednesday —23 September—when Britain ignominiously had to pull out of the ERM. Have all the changing circumstances since mid-September been considered in the updated jobs report? The jobs report refers to property values in the bay area and I believe that those references are highly contentious.
We will consider 90 amendments in seven groups in this debate. I cannot see how we can examine the detail and question the assumptions in the new report. The assumptions deserve to be examined very carefully as they comprise new material which has been made available to us only on the day of the debate. The Government have let themselves down badly and have not given the House a fair chance to debate the issues.
I wish that we could rely on the Government to accept that they have presented us with so much new material and that there have been so many changes that the Bill is worthy of at least another two or three days' debate at a time when we are not overwhelmed by parliamentary business. Bearing in mind the Government's difficulties with other legislation, they could quite easily provide time to consider the issues and not whip the Bill through tonight with Conservative Members who, on at least two other occasions, proved that they did not care what happened to the Bill because the Government had to pull up stumps as Conservative Members were not in the Chamber to support them.
I make a last plea to the Minister to give us a few more days to discuss the issues seriously, because we will not be able to do that in two hours this evening.

Mr. Ron Davies: We are living in truly remarkable times. The Government are sitting like a group of rabbits paralysed by a car's headlamps. The Government machine and the economy of the country are collapsing around them. The Government are divided as they have never been divided before, yet they have to come to the House in prime time tonight with a guillotine motion. What is even more astounding than the divisions in the Conservative party is the fact that the Government have managed to unite the Labour party today. All Opposition Members realise how deep the divisions have

been, but the Minister and his colleagues are so inept that they have contrived a situation today in which all the Welsh Labour Members will vote in the Lobby against the motion. That is a clear sign of the Government's ineptitude.
Erskine May describes guillotine motions as
the most drastic method of curtailing debate known to procedure … it cannot be denied that they are capable of being used in such a way as to upset the balance … between the claims of business and the rights of debate.
We heard nothing about the flood of business that is pressing the House when the Leader of the House opened the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) referred very eloquently to the long recess. The only whipped business before the House this week is the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, and there was virtually no business before the House last week. I understand that the business managers are in such a state that they barely have any business to put before the House this side of Christmas. However, the Government are asserting today that the guillotine must apply and the rights of debate must be set to one side because of the demands of Government business.

Mr. Hanson: One need only consult yesterday's Official Report to discover that business finished at 8.36 pm. Surely that is not a packed programme.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend has made the case directly.
Over the past five or six years, we have had plenty of experience of an arrogant Government determined to press their legislation through who then had to repent at the leisure of the people of this country. Even the Government must accept that the poll tax was a very good example of that. We heard all the pleas that it was necessary to curtail debate because the poll tax was a vital piece of legislation. We were told that we could not have further discussion of it. It was driven on to the statute book. What happened? It was driven on to the statute book without proper debate and that resulted in a mess.
That legislation brought down a Prime Minister and should have brought down the Government. However, the Government have learnt nothing from that experience because they are still demonstrating the same attitude. They believe that the needs of business must take precedence over debate. The Government are incapable of learning from their own mistakes.

Dr. Kim Howells: Just like the poll tax.

Mr. Davies: Indeed, the Secretary of State was responsible for that fiasco.
I am sorry that the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the Liberal party spokesman, is no longer in the Chamber. His comments were breathtaking in their ignorance and arrogance. In a throwaway comment, he said that it did not matter about the slugs, snails and newts in Cardiff bay. From your careful observation of our debates, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you will know that the case for Cardiff bay is not about slugs, snails or newts. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) who is a great expert on the ecology of Cardiff bay knows, there are no slugs or newts in the bay.
It was typical of the Liberal party that its spokesman should make a few throwaway comments in a patronising and condescending way and completely offend the interests in Wales which have been arguing the


evironmental case. He set those to one side. We need more debate about the matter so that we can educate the Liberal party on environmental and ecological matters and put to them the fact that the case for Cardiff bay rests on the site of special scientific interest. That case depends on the bird life in the bay.
When the Leader of the House opened the debate, it was interesting that his Parliamentary Private Secretary was the only Tory Back Bencher in the Chamber. Where are all the Tory Members who regard the Bill as a matter of fundamental importance?

Mr. Paul Flynn: They are in Strangers Bar.

Mr. Davies: I can only suggest that my hon. Friend has just come from the Strangers Bar. He might be bringing some news hotfoot. The Government's troops are simply waiting for the green light from the Secretary of State; they will then rush to the Chamber sufficiently lubricated to make passionate and powerful speeches in favour of the guillotine motion.
The truth is that the Government and the Tory party could not care less about the measure. If Conservative Members supported the barrage, they would have been in the Chamber tonight. They would have been here when the Secretary of State sent out his pathetic little letter last year. The Secretary of State had to write to Cabinet members asking them for support to get the private Member's Bill on the statute book, but the Government could not muster the 100 Members necessary to force the closure at 11.30 pm—so much for the commitment of the Secretary of State and Conservative Members. Their recognition of the vital nature of the debate is demonstrated again by their absence tonight.
I intervened on my hon. Friend the Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), the shadow Leader of the House, and pointed out that the Government have no mandate for this measure. That makes the guillotining of the debate even more important. The traditional defence of a guillotine is, "We have a mandate for it; it was in the manifesto; the people have voted for it; it is being deliberately obstructed on the Floor of the House; if we wish to put the people's view into practice, we have to guillotine it."
There is no public mandate for this measure. The only mention of it in the Conservative party manifesto was a very brief sentence which states:
Land made derelict by old industries has been reclaimed on a massive scale. The Cardiff Bay development and the Ebbw Vale garden festival are outstanding examples".
That is hardly a plea for public endorsement or an unequivocal plea to the people of Wales: "You must vote Conservative because, at the heart of our economic policy, we will press the regeneration of south Wales by building a barrage across the mouth of the Taff estuary." It is a bit like the claim that the centrepiece of the Government's economic strategy is the maintenance of the value of the pound within the exchange rate mechanism—and it has about as much weight.

Mr. Hanson: I need not remind my hon. Friend that, even if that were an endorsement, after the general election on 9 April the Conservative party found itself with six seats in Wales, only one of which is represented in the Chamber this evening. Twenty-seven of us were elected, and we have friends in other parties—four in Plaid Cymru

and one in the Liberal Democrats. So even if the subject had been in the Conservatives' manifesto, that would hardly be a ringing endorsement as they lost the election in Wales just as they will lose the vote on the motion.

Mr. Davies: My hon. Friend is correct but over-generous. I do not think that six Welsh Tories can claim to support the Bill. The Minister himself is the very Minister who blocked the Bill's predecessor. He has given no explanation of that, so I think that there are five and not six. The Minister has the cheek to say that we should have no further debate, when he is the very individual who blocked the previous legislation. We are at least entitled to an explanation of how the blinding light fell upon him and determined him in this new course of action. In the Conservative party these days one does not need much persuasion. The argument is that one gets carried away by events. The Minister will say, "I was carried away by events; I was swept up by the tide of popular enthusiasm and made a Minister in the Welsh Office."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that the Minister will not respond on the committal motion.

Mr. Davies: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. That is why, on this guillotine motion, it is very inappropriate for the Minister to be here.
I have to accept that, as a diehard opponent of the Bill, along with my hon. Friends, I have played my part in trying to talk out the legislation. That is no secret—we all know what we have been doing. We filibustered the previous measure and we have filibustered this measure as best we can. The attitude of any responsible Government facing such diehard opposition would have been to say, "We are going to get a guillotine motion; now accept the fact that we are going to push the measure through." Despite all the objections and reservations raised by my hon. Friends, they should have said, "We are going to guillotine the motion, but let us have an appropriate debate on the outstanding matters."
We know from the selection of amendments that there are vital matters for debate, but the guillotine motion will allow only about two hours' consideration of the amendments. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to that point. If we decided to vote on each lead amendment, there would not be sufficient time to vote on the amendments, let alone debate them. If the Minister wanted to ensure that the real concerns of the people of Cardiff were addressed—for example, the problems of groundwater, water quality in the bay, water quality in the lagoon, and the replacement of lost sensitive environments —he should have produced a guillotine motion which at least allowed reasonable time for discussion.
The guillotine motion is draconian, to say the least. It will not even allow us the opportunity to say yes or no to each group of amendments. It is a particular disappointment that a Minister and a Secretary of State who pride themselves on wanting to develop consensus—at least, that is what they say—should bring forward this guillotine motion instead of saying, "We are going to guillotine the measure, so let us have a motion which allows an appropriate response."
We know that the Government will win the vote on the motion. The pity is that they will deny reasonable debate. As on many other occasions, they will get their legislation, but other people will have to pay the price. In this case, the priceless natural heritage of Wales will be destroyed and


the people of Cardiff will pay a much higher personal price for the lethargy, indolence and myopia of the Secretary of State and his colleagues in the Welsh Office.

Mr. Paul Murphy: As always, this is a matter of great interest to us all. I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) said when he pointed out that the Government's incompetence in handling the Bill has united Labour Members. Only a few Sundays ago, I happened to switch on the television and see a programme about teaching English to foreign students. On that programme my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) argued the merits and demerits of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill. It is amazing that, if the Government are united on anything, it can only be the guillotining of Welsh business.
The Leader of the House gave us facts and figures relating to the hours that have supposedly been spent debating the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but he failed to tell the House that there were separate Bills. In a sense, they dealt with separate issues. My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West has told the House how the Bill has considerably altered, as has the nature of the barrage, over the months and years. The Leader of the House also failed to tell the House that the barrage has involved immense controversy. Therefore, it is only right and proper that appropriate time should be given in the House of Commons so that representatives of the people of Wales may discuss these matters.
We are concerned also about the precedent being set by guillotining a hybrid Bill. Perhaps most significant for Welsh Members of Parliament is the fact that, in a sense, the motion is an English guillotine motion. I say that not in a nationalistic sense, but out of 38 Welsh Members of Parliament only six are Conservatives. With the possible exception of the sole Liberal Democrat for Wales, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile), the overwhelming majority of Welsh Members require greater scrutiny than has been afforded this Bill.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West and others referred to the fact that, some months ago, Standing Order No. 86—an 85-year-old parliamentary tradition—had been deliberately overturned by the Government because they did not want all Welsh Members discussing what is to take place in their capital city. The Government are doing that again today. Opportunities for all Welsh Members to discuss the details of the Cardiff bay barrage are limited. If Welsh Members had not served on the Standing Committee, the number of hours in which to discuss these important issues would have been far more restricted than was implied by the Leader of the House.
Several of my hon. Friends referred to the Cardiff Bay development corporation and said that it was not subject to sufficient scrutiny by the House. If we had not faced a guillotine motion this evening, we could have given much more time to the public scrutiny of that body.
My hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) suggested that admirals ran public bodies in Wales. As far as I know, there may well be an admiral or two running a committee somewhere in Wales; there are certainly colonels, generals, squires, unsuccessful Tory

candidates and defeated Conservative Members. The irony is that, the more seats the Conservative party loses, the more jobs it gives itself.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that many amendments on local accountability had yet to be debated on Report. For example, there is a host of amendments on setting up a Cardiff bay advisory committee. The Leader of the House referred to the House of Lords Select Committee. That Committee said that an advisory committee was a matter for the House of Commons to discuss in some detail. The opportunity did not properly arise in the Standing Committee, and we shall certainly not be given the opportunity on Report because we shall have a limited amount of time.
My hon. Friends the Members for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) and for Caerphilly referred to all the other issues which stand before us and may not be debated. Those issues include the flora and fauna associated with Cardiff bay, the sites of special scientific interest which have been debated outside the House but not sufficiently inside the House, the quality of the water in Cardiff bay, the needs of those who fish, groundwater levels and flooding, which are still matters of grave concern to thousands of people in Cardiff, and the intertwined roles of the National Rivers Authority and the Secretary of State. Those issues will not be discussed today.
Perhaps the most important issue which will not be completely and properly discussed is the amount of money that will be spent to build the barrage. The most important role of the House is to scrutinise public expenditure. Hundreds of millions of pounds are to be spent on the barrage proposal, much of which is public money. We have been told that at present the Cabinet is examining what we know as the Barnett formula, and will reduce the amount of public expenditure in the Principality. The Standing Committee certainly had evidence of sloppy management of the finances of the Cardiff Bay development corporatiton.
All the matters that I have mentioned make it vitally important for the House to be allowed to fulfil its traditional role of scrutinising public spending, particularly when such spending is at risk. When the Government had a majority of 100, they used to browbeat and bully the House. As we saw last week, however, the world has changed for the Government—they now have a majority of only 21. The Government have neither the mandate, nor the right or the authority to impose their shaky will on the House or on the people of Wales. I urge the House to vote against the motion.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am glad that we have had one of our traditional, good-natured Welsh debates on this important timetable motion.
The debate was opened by the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett), who should be congratulated on the textbook nature of her contribution. Unlike a few other Opposition Members, the hon. Lady was in no danger of being called to order by the Chair. She produced a traditional litany against timetable motions, with only the slightest reference to this motion. It was ironic that she criticised the Government that for not having passed the subject of the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill when it was a


private Bill. It was not a Government Bill. There was no Government Whip on that Bill. But it was noticeable how few Labour Members bothered to participate in the debate or the divisions on the private Bill.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) reminded us of the benefits that will flow from the redevelopment, which will include the construction of the barrage. Like my right hon. Friend the Lord President, the hon. Gentleman referred to the widespread support in South Wales for the proposal. He was typically generous in describing the speeches from his own Front Bench, which he described as reasoned. That is a comment which only the hon. Gentleman can make about his own Front Bench. Perhaps he was even more honest when he said that Opposition Members had conducted the debate in a comradely fashion. If that is a comradely fashion, they must be wearing bullet-proof vests and every sort of protection from knives in the back.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said that amendment No. 13 dealt with an important matter which he wants us to examine this evening. I accept that amendment No. 13 is a constructive proposal. The spirit of that amendment is fully accepted; it is compiled with in the publication of the environmental assessment.
I hope that I shall have the opportunity later this evening to point out to the hon. Gentleman that most of the materials for the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage will be transported by water or by rail and that the main site access will be through Queen Alexandra dock. I am sure that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman that it will not be necessary for him to press amendment No. 13 to a vote later this evening.
The hon. Member for Pontypridd (Dr. Howells) reminded us of the importance of considering the worth of the moneys that will be spent on the proposal. His desire for action for the valleys is most appropriate. He is absolutely right to put that forward. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth said, an integral part of the Bill is the substantial benefits that it will bring. They will not be confined to Cardiff, but will be of material advantage to the whole of south Wales.
I am reminded that the hon. Member for Pontypridd has told me that he is typically one of the yuppies on his side of the House. He lives alongside the water himself, so he is likely to benefit directly from the improvements that will be brought about for Cardiff bay and River Taff by the barrage. I hope that he will benefit, and that his constituents will benefit.

Dr. Kim Howells: I never knowingly described myself as a yuppie. I should like to know whether the dam will be high enough to make the reservoir stretch as fair as Abercynon. The reservoir needs to stretch that far if it is to affect my constituency. Will the barrage block up the river and swallow up Abercynon and presumably the whole of Cardiff?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman knows well the improvements that will flow for the River Taff and for south Wales generally, and we must make progress with that.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) asked whether the Bill was defective and would be changed in another place. He knows full well the answer to that question. He will recall that the Select Committee required the Government to amend the Bill to widen the land

drainage powers of Cardiff city council. The matter has been discussed and agreed with the city council, and the Government will make an amendment to the Bill as it is presented in another place.
However, it is erroneous to suggest that the Bill is defective in any way. I can certainly give an assurance that anyone who is directly affected will have the right to petition in another place. The timetable in this House will have no effect whatever on that right.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister must accept the use of the word "defective" to describe a Bill that will be altered after it has left the House, particularly when the only reason why the alteration was not made in this House was that the Bill would have to go back to Second Reading. It will now be hybridised in the other place. The hon. Gentleman is asking the House to pass a Bill on the basis of a promise that it will be put right in another place. To say that it will be put right in another place is to accept that it is defective as it goes through this place. There can be no other meaning of the word.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman's pretence that the Bill is defective is yet another wild stretch of his fertile imagination. The Bill is not defective. Everybody knows what is happening, and no one will lose rights as a result of the Bill or the timetable motion.
The hon. Gentleman spoke about financial matters, but those will be much more appropriately discussed when we resume the debate that we adjourned on Tuesday last week. Sadly, we had reached only the second group of amendments by 10 o'clock last Tuesday, and that group dealt with financial elements of the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman spoke of dewatering. That is an irrelevant argument, because, as he full well knows, no dewatering powers are sought under the Bill. Full protection is already included in the Bill for any changes that might come about to groundwater as a result of the building of the barrage. Dewatering may improve the situation, but I can say no more than "may". It will be exhaustively studied, but it does not affect the groundwater protections provisions in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman went on to rerun those old claims about the micro-climate of Cardiff Bay. Somehow, the barrage will affect heating costs, traffic accidents and even, in his most sensational claim, infant mortality. My technical advisers suggest that any changes in the micro-climate as a result of barrage construction will be negligible. It is inconceivable that a temperature difference of 2 to 4 deg C would occur in the local atmosphere. The relative size of the bay compared with the Severn estuary is indicative of the magnitude of any change that could occur.
As the hon. Member said, Dr. Wallis appeared before the Select Committee earlier this year to make those claims. He expanded on his views at length, but the Select Committee was deeply unimpressed. The hon. Gentleman's attempts to resuscitate them now is a typical example of his willingness to use any scare story, no matter how far-fetched, to oppose the barrage.

Mr. Morgan: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Jones: Yes, I will give way.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has given way but he will agree that he had to do so because he made a disgraceful slur against my reasoning in using


that argument. He will recall—he has not touched on this —that I was allowed by you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to read out a letter from Lord Crickhowell which referred to the Middlesex polytechnic flood hazard research centre having confirmed the soundness of the statistical procedures used by Dr. Wallis and Mr. Monro. That is not to say that I agree with them, but their views have been confirmed and validated quite independently, and externally, by a body chosen by the National Rivers Authority.
That is why I was at pains to say that this was not my thesis but that of Dr. Wallis and Mr. Monro. I have not externally validated it—not being a scientist, I could not do so. Instead, the body chosen by the NRA has validated it. The hon. Gentleman should withdraw his disgraceful slur.

Mr. Jones: As I have said, my technical advisers have reassured me that such claims are inconceivable. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman is backing off from any suggestion that he is supporting those claims—or is it another attempt by him, in the vernacular that he would use, to slag off health provision in Cardiff and South Glamorgan?
The hon. Gentleman also referred to another matter, but it would be best if I told him that, if he were brief, to the point and relevant—perhaps I am asking too much of him—we could consider all those points in the time available to us this evening.

Mr. Ron Davies: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In fact, there are two points of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should prefer one at a time.

Mr. Davies: I was just trying to save you time, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am happy to make my points one at a time. First, throughout the debate you have made it clear that we had to restrict our remarks to the terms of the motion before us. For the past five minutes, the Minister has been wandering everywhere, and he has not referred to the motion. Is it not time that he directed his remarks to the terms of the motion?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but I allowed the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) to quote from the letter to the NRA, and the Minister was responding to that. Therefore, that was not a point of order.

Mr. Davies: On a second point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Minister accused my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West of being neither brief nor relevant, and said that he was guilty of being repetitious. Is that not a direct slur on you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because if my hon. Friend were guilty of irrelevance and repetition, you would have called him to order?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is right. Had the hon. Member for Cardiff, West been unduly repetitious, I would have called him to order. He was not, and I did not hear any criticism to that effect.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) asked for time to consider the latest economic appraisal. I give him the same answer that I gave the hon. Member for Cardiff, West.
The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies) was at last totally frank on this subject. All he has been engaged in is a filibuster. Equally, he admitted that his case is bankrupt. He cannot succeed by persuasion, and all he can do is resort to filibuster.

Mr. Davies: Let me make it clear, so that there is no misunderstanding. I told the Minister that I was opposed to the Bill, and that, if necessary, I would resort to filibustering to try to defeat it. It ill becomes a Minister whose Back Benchers have not made one contribution to the proceedings, either tonight or on previous occasions, to talk of the value of persuading other people by the force of debate. He has never had anyone to listen to him.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman need only reflect on the dearth of his colleagues who have turned out in debate and in the Division Lobbies to support him on previous occasions.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) made sure that we concluded our proceedings in the good-natured manner that we had maintained throughout. There was a twinkle in his eye when he claimed that the Government had managed to unite his colleagues on this subject. I know that he does not even believe that himself. That is as true as the merriment that there has been among Labour Members since the vote last week on new clause 1. They were united on that vote last week, but that meant that they were united on voting down the only success that the hon. Member for Cardiff, West has achieved in all his contributions to our debates.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House said, the House has already had extensive debates on the concept of a barrage across Cardiff bay in the context of the private Bill promoted by the Cardiff Bay development corporation and South Glamorgan county council. The barrage proposal, the operation of the barrage, the management of the inland bay and the outer harbour and the ground water protection scheme were extensively examined on the Floor of the House, in Committee and in another place. The examination of this Bill, which would achieve the same ends, has been rigorous.

Mr. Win Griffiths: The Minister once again says that the barrage scheme has been well debated, but will he not admit that last week there was a further update on the economic effect of the benefits of the barrage that could not be done justice to even if we spent the whole of the two hours that we have on that issue alone?

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman has already made that point, and I have already replied to it.
The opponents' determination to slow up proceedings on the Bill was evident last Tuesday, when the House was discussing new clause 1. Although we were considering a large group of other amendments, most of the three hours spent on them was taken up with attacks on the Government's new clause 1 and related amendments. The Government had tabled those amendments to meet in full—indeed, to extend—amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Cardiff, West in Standing Committee.
Of the 125 or so amendments tabled in Committee by Opposition Members, well over half had been tabled again. Having heard the same points made on Second Reading and in Committee, it was not unreasonable to expect opponents to come forward with something that we had not heard before. The evidence of last Tuesday was


that further consideration of the Bill was to be yet another rerun of familiar arguments from some Opposition Members. That is not to dismiss the real issues arising from the Bill: the Government have addressed those by ensuring that adequate safeguards appear in the Bill.
On Second Reading on 25 November, the Opposition tabled an amendment about the adequacy of the groundwater protection scheme, about public consultation on the Hydrotechnica studies and about water quality in the inland bay. There were ample opportunities in Standing Committee to discuss the ground water protection scheme and the Bill's provisions relating to water quality. Public consultation on the Hydrotechnica studies, a separate issue, was dealt with fully when my right hon. Friend announced his decision on public funding in the light of those studies on 20 January this year.
The National Rivers Authority has declared itself satisfied with the way in which its responsibilities, including water quality, are dealt with in the Bill. In the circumstances, therefore, the motion is entirely reasonable. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Carlile) said, once a motion has been fully debated—and this subject certainly has been—it is time to make a decision on it. He is right, and I urge the House to support it.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 296, Noes 201.

Division No. 77]
[7.01 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Butler, Peter


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Butterfill, John


Aitken, Jonathan
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Alexander, Richard
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Carlisle, John (Luton North)


Allason, Rupert (Torbay)
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Amess, David
Carrington, Matthew


Ancram, Michael
Carttiss, Michael


Arbuthnot, James
Cash, William


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Channon, Rt Hon Paul


Ashby, David
Chaplin, Mrs Judith


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clappison, James


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Coe, Sebastian


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Colvin, Michael


Baldry, Tony
Congdon, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Conway, Derek


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)


Bates, Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Batiste, Spencer
Cormack, Patrick


Bellingham, Henry
Couchman, James


Bendall, Vivian
Cran, James


Beresford, Sir Paul
Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davies, Quentin (Stamford)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Day, Stephen


Booth, Hartley
Deva, Nirj Joseph


Boswell, Tim
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Dorrell, Stephen


Bottomley, Rt Hon Virginia
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Bowden, Andrew
Dover, Den


Bowis, John
Duncan, Alan


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Brandreth, Gyles
Dunn, Bob


Brazier, Julian
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bright, Graham
Dykes, Hugh


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thorpes)
Eggar, Tim


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Elletson, Harold


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Budgen, Nicholas
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Burns, Simon
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Burt, Alistair
Evennett, David





Faber, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Fabricant, Michael
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
MacKay, Andrew


Forman, Nigel
Maclean, David


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maclennan, Robert


Forth, Eric
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Madel, David


Freeman, Roger
Malone, Gerald


French, Douglas
Mans, Keith


Fry, Peter
Marland, Paul


Gale, Roger
Marlow, Tony


Gallie, Phil
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Gardiner, Sir George
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Garel-Jones, Rt Hon Tristan
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Garnier, Edward
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Gill, Christopher
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Merchant, Piers


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Milligan, Stephen


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Mills, Iain


Gorst, John
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Moate, Roger


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Moss, Malcolm


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)
Nelson, Anthony


Grylls, Sir Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Hague, William
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie
Nicholls, Patrick


(Epsom-Ewell)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Hampson, Dr Keith
Norris, Steve


Hanley, Jeremy
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hannam, Sir John
Ottaway, Richard


Hargreaves, Andrew
Page, Richard


Harvey, Nick
Paice, James


Haselhurst, Alan
Patnick, Irvine


Hawkins, Nick
Patten, Rt Hon John


Hawksley, Warren
Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Heald, Oliver
Pawsey, James


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Hendry, Charles
Pickles, Eric


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hicks, Robert
Porter, David (Waveney)


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Portillo, Rt Hon Michael


Hill, James (Southampton Test)
Powell, William (Corby)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Rathbone, Tim


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Redwood, John


Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)
Richards, Rod


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Riddick, Graham


Jack, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Robathan, Andrew


Jenkin, Bernard
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Jessel, Toby
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Sackville, Tom


Kilfedder, Sir James
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Kirkhope, Timothy
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kirkwood, Archy
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knapman, Roger
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Shersby, Michael


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Knox, David
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Soames, Nicholas


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Speed, Sir Keith


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Spencer, Sir Derek


Legg, Barry
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


Leigh, Edward
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Spink, Dr Robert


Lidington, David
Spring, Richard


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Sproat, Iain


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Lord, Michael
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Luff, Peter
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Steen, Anthony






Stephen, Michael
Walden, George


Stern, Michael
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Stewart, Allan
Wallace, James


Streeter, Gary
Waller, Gary


Sumberg, David
Ward, John


Sweeney, Walter
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sykes, John
Waterson, Nigel


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Watts, John


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wells, Bowen


Taylor, John M. (Solihull)
Wheeler, Sir John


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Whitney, Ray


Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)
Whittingdale, John


Temple-Morris, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Thomason, Roy
Wiggin, Jerry


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Wilkinson, John


Thornton, Sir Malcolm
Willetts, David


Thurnham, Peter
Wilshire, David


Townend, John (Bridlington)
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)
Wolfson, Mark


Tracey, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Tredinnick, David
Yeo, Tim


Trend, Michael
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Trotter, Neville



Twinn, Dr Ian
Tellers for the Ayes:


Tyler, Paul
Mr. David Lightbown and


Viggers, Peter
Mr. Sydney Chapman.


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William





NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dafis, Cynog


Adams, Mrs Irene
Darling, Alistair


Ainger, Nick
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Allen, Graham
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Denham, John


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dewar, Donald


Barnes, Harry
Dixon, Don


Barron, Kevin
Dobson. Frank


Battle, John
Dowd, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Beckett, Margaret
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bell. Stuart
Eastham, Ken


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Enright, Derek


Bennett, Andrew F.
Etherington, Bill


Benton, Joe
Ewing, Mrs Margaret


Bermingham, Gerald
Fatchett, Derek


Berry, Dr. Roger
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blair, Tony
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, David
Flynn, Paul


Boyce, Jimmy
Foster, Derek (B'p Auckland)


Boyes, Roland
Foulkes, George


Bradley, Keith
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, N. (N'c'tle upon Tyne E)
Galbraith, Sam


Burden, Richard
Gapes, Mike


Byers, Stephen
Gerrard, Neil


Caborn, Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Callaghan, Jim
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gordon, Mildred


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Canavan, Dennis
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chisholm, Malcolm
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Clapham, Michael
Grocott, Bruce


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Gunnell, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Hain, Peter


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hanson, David


Clelland, David
Hardy, Peter


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Henderson, Doug


Coffey, Ann
Heppell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Cook. Frank (Stockton N)
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hoey, Kate


Corbett, Robin
Hood, Jimmy


Cousins, Jim
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cox, Tom
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Bob
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Doug


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Cunningham, Dr John (C'p'I'nd)
Hutton, John





Ingram, Adam
O'Neill, Martin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Parry, Robert


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Pickthall, Colin


Jamieson, David
Pike, Peter L.


Janner, Greville
Pope, Greg


Jones, Barry (Alyn and D'side)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Jones, Ieuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd, SW)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jowell, Tessa
Randall, Stuart


Keen, Alan
Raynsford, Nick


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Reid, Dr John


Khabra, Piara S.
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Leighton, Ron
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Terry
Rooney, Terry


Litherland, Robert
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Ross, William (E Londonderry)


Lloyd, Tony (Stratford)
Rowlands, Ted


Llwyd, Elfyn
Ruddock, Joan


Loyden, Eddie
Salmond, Alex


McAvoy, Thomas
Sedgemore, Brian


McCartney, Ian
Sheerman, Barry


Macdonald, Calum
Short, Clare


McFall, John
Skinner, Dennis


McKelvey, William
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McLeish, Henry
Soley, Clive


McWilliam, John
Spearing, Nigel


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mahon, Alice
Straw, Jack


Mandelson, Peter
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester, S)
Tipping, Paddy


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Turner, Dennis


Martlew, Eric
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Meacher, Michael
Watson, Mike


Michael, Alun
Welsh, Andrew


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wicks, Malcolm


Milburn, Alan
Wigley, Dafydd


Miller, Andrew
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Winnick, David


Morgan, Rhodri
Wise, Audrey


Morley, Elliot
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mudie, George



Murphy, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


O'Hara, Edward
Mr. Alan Meale.


Olner, William

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,

That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill:—

Orders of the Day — Report and Third Reading

1.—(1) The remaining proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed at this day's sitting.

(2) The proceedings on consideration shall be brought to a conclusion at Nine o'clock.

(3) The proceedings on Third Reading shall be brought to a conclusion at Ten o'clock.

(4) Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) shall not apply.

Orders of the Day — Dilatory Motions

2. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Order of proceedings

3.—(1) No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken, except by a member of the Government.

(2) The question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.

Orders of the Day — Conclusion of proceedings

4.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any


proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others).

(a) any Question already proposed from the Chair;
(b) any Question necessary to bring to a decision a Question so proposed (including, in the case of a new Schedule which has been read a second time, the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill);
(c) the Question that such of the amendments 14, 31, 55, 66 and 64 as remain be made to the Bill;
(d) the Question that all remaining amendments standing in the name of a member of the Government be made to the Bill;
(e) any other Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded;

and on a Motion so made for a new Schedule, the Speaker shall put only the Question that the Schedule be added to the Bill.

(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.

(3) If at this day's sitting a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) stands over to Seven o'clock, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order, are to be brought to a conclusion after that time shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.

Orders of the Day — Supplemental orders

5.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order shall, if not previously concluded, he brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.

(2) If the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before the time at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under this Order, no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.

Orders of the Day — Saving

6. Nothing in this Order shall prevent any proceedings to which the Order applies from being taken or completed earlier than is required by the Order.

Orders of the Day — Recommittal

7.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings at those stages respectively, for on or in consequence of, recommittal.

(2) No debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and the Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.

Orders of the Day — Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question proposed [20 October] on consideration of the Bill, as amended (in the Standing Committee).

Clause 1

CONSTRUCTION OF BARRAGE ETC. AND OTHER WORKS

Which amendment was: in page 1, line 7, at the beginning to insert the words—

`Subject to subsection (8) below'. (Mrs. Ann Clwyd.)

Question again proposed, That the Amendment be made.

Mr. Rhodri Morgan: I resume the debate on this group of important amendments in the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Rogers), who is in Hong Kong. He was in mid-flight when he was so cruelly cut off by the Government's failure to keep their troops here at 10 o'clock a week ago. That may have been the beginning of the degeneration of the Government's authority over their Back Benchers, of which we have seen so much more evidence in the past seven days—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have complained about the lack of time to debate the amendments. Can we please get on to debating them?

Mr. Morgan: I agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are talking about Cardiff, not Maastricht. Were we discussing Maastricht, there would be no guillotine motion because the Government would be unable to impose it. That is the only point that I was trying to make. Maastricht is the Cardiff of Holland—the capital of an area that used to contain coal mines, which have now all closed down. That is what we have been trying to prevent in the past week.
The amendments to which we should pay further attention tonight concern whether the updated version of the cost-benefit analysis provided to us by KPMG Management Consulting is adequate for us to proceed with, or whether it is a doctored analysis done specifically to assist the client to get permission to spend taxpayers' money on a vast scale but not something that a consultancy firm would feel proud of or want to enter for consultancy study of the year competitions next Christmas. It is probably fair to say that it falls into that category and that the House must therefore provide the element that consultancy studies do not reach—namely, a realistic and objective look at the costs and benefits that need to be applied to the barrage proposal, given its size, implications, side effects and importance in the Welsh public expenditure budget.
We want to ensure that the House considers whether the cost-benefit analysis that has been done so far meets the terms that it properly should.
The trouble with cost-benefit analyses of this sort is that they tend to be done to please the client so that the company concerned obtains follow-on business. That is not to say that they are full of porkies, but they tend to be attuned to the client's wishes; sometimes they are even rewritten when the client is not too happy with the first shot. Tonight, we need to discuss whether the cost-benefit analysis has taken full account of the change in the economic climate since the earlier analyses were done.
They were done without examination of the demand for land and property development of the London docklands type.
When the scheme was initiated, it was thought that office-led developments were a good thing—they appeared to bring prosperity, and it was thought that they could replicate in Cardiff the sort of prosperity that was being created by the £15 billion-worth of private sector investment in London docklands in 1987 and 1988.
All this has now gone into reverse. What concerns me is whether the cost-benefit analysis, although officially updated, has really been updated, or whether the consultants still believe that replicating Canary wharf in Cardiff on a smaller scale is still a valid idea. Have they been able to leave behind the mind set of 1987–88 and adopt a mind set suitable for 1992's economic conditions?
Last week, the blue book issued by KPMG was given us for reading and debate. The problem is that people have assumed that, if the supply is provided, the demand will inevitably follow. We must ask ourselves whether any equation that does not include the demand side is valid at all. My hon. Friends and I are all convinced that the demand side should have been studied much more closely by KPMG for the updated report. That is why amendment No. 91 still calls for an effective cost-benefit analysis. None has yet been done, and it is not possible for the consultants to do one usefully unless they can shake off the feeling that what Cardiff needs is another Canary wharf. Cardiff needs that like a hole in the head.
We must learn the lessons of what has happened in the east end of London. If we do not, we will build the wrong infrastructure, make the same mistakes and create another white elephant of the same type. I do not believe that KPMG has been able to take a step back and think again about the new conditions of 1992. It has not examined demand in south Cardiff in the light of what has happened in the past five years. The consultants' appraisal still looks far too much at the supply side of land and property at the expense of demand.
There are 20 million sq ft of surplus office space in central London, not to mention in docklands. The price of this space has collapsed, with the resulting tortuous negotiations in which the Government are engaged to try to save Canary Wharf by working a deal with the Jubilee line and shipping out 2,000 civil servants—who might otherwise have considered moving to Cardiff. We should think about the potential loss of jobs in Cardiff under the Government's office relocation schemes. Their top priority will be to organise relocation from central London and Whitehall to the Canary wharf area, and they will probably spend the next 10 years trying to fill that great white elephant.
The 2,000 civil servants from the Department of the Environment in Marsham street—the Government are toying with the idea of moving them to Canary wharf— might have been candidates for Cardiff, but they will not come for the next few years while the huge surplus of space remains in London. The KPMG report gives the flavour of none of this. It refers to the changed climate, but it does not really scrutinise the problems of supply. There is also the problem of price. The price of office space in London docklands has collapsed from £30 a square foot four years

ago to £10 today—or even as low as £5 if the office in question is not new. Canary wharf is available at £14 or £15 a square foot.
Welsh Office Ministers sought to deny us certain information last week, but the news is nevertheless astonishing. It concerns the rental being paid by the Welsh Office-sponsored quango, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, the first pre-let tenant of the Grosvenor Waterside development. The information comes to us in an updated press release from Grosvenor Waterside; it was initially issued only to the technical press. At any rate, the rental to be paid by the authority for its new 150,000 sq ft of office space, a relocation from central Cardiff to Cardiff docklands inner-harbour area, will be £14.50 a square foot—50 per cent. higher than the rentals on offer in London docklands.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: Does my hon. Friend recall how we were told in Committee by the Minister that this information, now apparently in a press release, was commercially confidential? Has the Welsh Office withheld information on this as on many other issues?

Mr. Morgan: I apologise; I said that the Minister refused us the information last week—it was actually in Committee that he did so. As my hon. Friend said, he refused it on the grounds of commercial confidentiality.
The Grosvenor Waterside press release described the lease for the first five years as at £14.50 per square foot. That is to be compared with the rent offered by Canary wharf's receivers for the relocation from Marsham street. The circumstances are similar, although the distances are greater in London, but the distance from Marsham street to Canary wharf is comparable with that between Newport road, where the Welsh Health Common Services Authority is, and Cardiff docklands.
The rationale in London is the considerable savings to be made from leaving central London, but the move to Cardiff docklands was a one-off letting organised under heavy pressure just before the election in an attempt by the Government to help Associated British Ports to move to Grosvenor Waterside inner harbour development. And the rental for that bears little resemblance to the collapsing rents of central London.
It is amazing what can be organised in a pre-election splurge of public expenditure to get some development going, with taxpayers' money, around the inner harbour. That needs close examination; it may get it from the Public Accounts Committee at some stage. In any case, such a move would not appeal to the private sector. We cannot rely entirely on public sector jobs moving at public sector-organised rentals which may have been arranged at a higher rate at least in part to stop the Government getting egg on their face.
If the private sector is to move to Cardiff bay, it will want rents well below those prevailing in London docklands. No one will move from London to Cardiff when there are cheaper rents to be had in London.

Mr. Rowlands: I apologise for interrupting again, but the full impact of the information now available is creating growing resentment. I begged the Minister three times to give us an illustration of the rents for the services authority. I was told repeatedly in Committee that they were commercially confidential. Unless the Minister interrupts my hon. Friend to say that the press release


from a private property company is wrong, surely we can conclude that the Minister should have readily provided us with the information when we pressed him in Committee.

Mr. Morgan: I am obviously grateful for my hon. Friend's intervention—

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): rose—

Mr. Morgan: I am glad to see that the Minister wishes to intervene. I give way to him.

Mr. Jones: I am grateful. I hope that it will be helpful if I try to respond to both the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
They are right to say that, when they raised the matter in Committee, I told them that the details were commercially confidential. The terms of the lease prevented the details being released without the prior consent of both parties. However, the figures have been released by the developer, and I can confirm that the average rent for the first five years will be 14.50 per sq ft. That is consistent with the range of £14 to £15 that is used in calculating initial land values for the barrage scheme in the latest economic appraisal.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to the Minister for the information that he has provided. We face a difficulty, because there is no date on the press release of Grosvenor Waterside. We may be able to obtain the date from the technical press, to which the press release was sent. That may help to clarify the situation at the time when the Minister was saying that the information was still commercially confidential. That is what he told us in Committee. Was the relevant information being given to the technical press at the time but he was not willing to disclose it to the Committee to avoid embarrassment, or whatever the reason may have been? We shall not know what the situation was without the date of the press release.

Mr. Rowlands: The Minister's intervention was even more pathetic than the contributions that we have come to expect from him. I understand that the press release appeared in October 1991. That was long before we discussed these matters in Committee.

Mr. Morgan: If that is the position, I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend. Perhaps the Minister will wish to intervene again. If the press release appeared a year ago, that is a material fact to set against the Minister's refusal to disclose details in Committee. I am trying to recall the month when we discussed these matters in Committee.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: I cannot help, because I do not have the precise date. I have set out the advice which I was given. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, having been in my position at the Welsh Office, may understand that the terms of the lease kept the details confidential, subject to disclosure by both parties. As I have said, they were made clear in a press release that was put out by the developer. On becoming aware of that, I intended to confirm the information that was put out. I am happy, however, to take the opportunity now.

Mr. Morgan: We look forward to a further explanation when the Minister replies to the debate.
The critical issue is how we are to measure demand in Cardiff over the next 20-odd years. We are talking primarily of office relocations, on which the viability of the barrage proposals depend in terms of betterment value, which will not exist if the present manufacturing and docks domination continues. It will be possible to pay for the barrage only if there are enormous increases in land values. Land values will have to be increased to much higher capital-based land values, by the construction of offices, five-star hotels, an opera house, high-class residential properties and some retail developments, for example. That will be a move away from the traditional manufacturing and docks domination in the area.
If it is not possible to move into a Canary Wharf-type development, it will be extremely difficult to meet the civil engineering cost of the barrage and its running costs and maintain water quality in the man-made lake, for example, into the future.
It is necessary to consider whether the recession is a temporary blip or whether we are seeing a fundamental change within our economy. It has been going on for rather longer than something that could be described as a temporary blip, so we must consider whether it is a sea change that will have an effect on demand within the economy for offices on the one hand and for leisure, housing and manufacturing developments on the other. It is a difficult area but it must be considered in the context of the KPMG cost-benefit analysis, which is sadly lacking in any realistic assessment.
Having read the KPMG attempt at producing an updated cost-benefit analysis, we take the view that it is inadequate. It considers the supply of land and assumes that there will be demand for whatever use is contemplated. The critical factor is whether there is demand. That is why so many Opposition Members think that the barrage proposal, with its dependence on trying to get firms to move from London to Cardiff when prices are so low in London that it is likely that they will remain there for the next 10 or 20 years until the surplus office space is soaked up, is ill-founded. It seems that the Government are trying to impose a Welsh Canary Wharf on Cardiff. They are bringing forward what I think it is fair to describe as 1987 answers to the problems of 1992.

Mr. Rod Richards: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Morgan: I have finished my speech.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I did not hear the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan). Is he giving way to the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards)?

Mr. Morgan: No, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have finished.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: First, I apologise to the House for missing the debates which took place last week. The reason for my absence was tonsillitis. This afternoon I read the Hansard reports and noted especially the contribution made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands).
Amendments Nos. 80 and 88 turn on the public spending involved. They are designed to impose a cap on that spending, which has increased in the form of estimates over the years. Amendment No. 91 is, in effect, a request for an updated cost-benefit analysis of the scale of public


investment proposed. Like everything else, costs increase over the years. The latest figure that I have is contained in a letter that the Minister wrote on 30 June to those of us who served on the Standing Committee.
The public sector contribution is assessed at £405 million. It is estimated that the total cost of construction and the associated infrastructure will be £662 million. Expenditure of £405 million of public money on the one project is on a scale far greater than that for any other projects in Wales. I wonder whether that money would not be much better spent on a series of other projects to improve our infrastructure. It is proposed to spend £405 million of public money on one project at a time when we are talking of public spending cuts or constraints. It seems extravagant to invest such a sum in one major project.
There will be a multiplier effect, and it is one that is calculated to attract private sector investment. We in the Labour party are interventionists: if we can use public money to prime private sector investment, that is fine. I question, however, how much private sector money will be attracted to the project, especially at a time of recession. In the documents issued over the past couple of years, it has been estimated that the multiplier will be a factor of seven. In other words, every £1 of public money will attract £7 from the private sector. That will amount to about £2 billion and the creation of 23,000 to 25,000 jobs. That is the scale of the estimates made by the Government and the development corporation.
In an article which appeared in the Western Mail last Saturday, the Minister is quoted as saying that the private sector investment that will be attracted will be more than £1 billion, or slightly more than £1 billion. I do not know whether that is the result of the recession or whether an error has been made. The Minister still believes that the scheme will create 23,000 jobs. In that same article, he described those who oppose the barrage as Luddites. That is incredible, coming from a Government who have brought the loss of 2 million or 3 million manufacturing jobs. Only last week we saw the debacle over pit closures, which affected Taff Merthyr and the Betws pit in my constituency. I hope that the Minister will reflect on the inappropriateness of his comments.
We have witnessed the serious problems encountered at Canary wharf over the past year. An economic boom may be the moment to realise prestige projects, but at a time of recession—when schools, roads, housing, and hospitals are underfunded—it is incredible that the Government should be pursuing this Bill.
There is an overwhelming need to reinvest in Britain's manufacturing base. The Library research notes suggest that the barrage scheme will create jobs—other than those in construction—in respect of shopping centres, commercial offices, schools and hospitals, industrial and high technology estates, tourism, cultural attractions, leisure amenities and 5,000 housing units. The emphasis is on service industries, which are suffering particularly badly in the recession. The project does not address the economic problems of the past two or three years.
Having attended every debate on the barrage in the past five years, I have reached the conclusion that the £400 million public money involved would be better spent in other ways. It is Welsh Office money and should be

distributed throughout Wales. I accept that jobs are desperately needed in the Cardiff area, because three out of the four Cardiff constituencies figure in the top five suffering the worst unemployment. Cardiff is seen as a wealthy capital city, but in truth it suffers high unemployment. However, my own constituency, which is 60 miles from Cardiff, will not benefit to any extent—and that is true of the whole of north and west Wales.
The trickle-down theory has it that investing a lot of money in Cardiff will benefit the valleys and the rest of Wales, but it will not. It would be wiser to invest the money across the whole principality.
Public expenditure on the barrage should be capped, and a detailed cost benefit analysis made this year and next year to see whether jobs really will be created and whether there are not far better ways of using that public money.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Gwilym Jones): I am sorry that the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) has been suffering from tonsillitis and the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) from bronchitis—which occasions his much-changed appearance before us this evening. I hope that both hon. Gentlemen will soon fully recover.
Most of last Tuesday's debate took the form of a sermon by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). That was appropriate at the time, because two days previously the hon. Gentleman and I had an opportunity to be in a state of grace—having attended a St. Luke's day service at St. David's church, Merthyr Tydfil, at which our mutual friend Canon Bill Morgan officiated.
Last Tuesday, I found myself listening to a self-confessed deja-vu-ist, when the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney made a sweeping condemnation of the economic appraisal. He does not like it, but he fails to produce any grounds for the claims that he makes. He casts the most unfair aspersions against reputable and professional firms. It was not KPMG alone who produced the appraisal but Chesterton, Conran Roche Planning, and Cooke and Arkwright. The good name and reputation of such firms is their most precious asset, and they would not lightly put their names to any appraisal—

Mr. Rowlands: In the valleys communities, Cooke and Arkwright is known as the hardest ground landlord of all. The Minister does not improve his case by reminding us that Cooke and Arkwright is involved in the concoction.

Mr. Jones: All four of the professional firms involved worked long and hard to produce the economical appraisal. If they were to attach their good names to a false appraisal, they would risk the reputations which are their best hope of future business.
The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Carmarthen referred to barrage-related costs of £662 million. That figure is correctly described as the total cost of a development strategy including a barrage. As the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) pointed out, those costs are not strictly barrage-related. None the less, I confirm that the figure of £497 million in the updated economic appraisal is equivalent to the £662 million given in my letter of 30 June.
If Opposition Members compare the table on page 12 of the appraisal with the equivalent table in the January 1990 appraisal. they will see where the differences lie. As to the reduced costs of the peripheral distributor road, it is standard procedure in any economic appraisal to exclude money already spent when calculating net present value. The sums spent were excluded from both the with and without barrage scenarios, so both were treated equally.
The hon. Members for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney and for Neath (Mr. Hain) asked about the public sector contribution. Table A8 of the appraisal shows the public sector investment to be £349 million, which is equivalent to the £405 million given in my letter of 30 June.

Mr. Rowlands: Is the ratio of public to private expenditure higher or lower in the revised figures than it was in the original?

Mr. Jones: I shall come to that in a moment.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West asked whether there had been any further change in the estimated cost of barrage construction since the revision of the figures. There has been no further change since the figures that I gave him in Committee. Echoing the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney, the hon. Gentleman asked whether the job estimate had been based purely on estimates of office space. The answer is no—the estimate of office space is based on detailed estimates of the commercial demand for such space. That is reinforced by, for example, the success of developments around the existing water edge in the Tarmac development.
The hon. Gentleman misquoted Chesterton as saying that nothing had changed in the property world. Chesterton has made modest adjustments to the growth rate, but significant cuts in the base values from which it started.

Mr. Morgan: The Minister is being terribly unrealistic if he is asking us to accept that there is anything in common between the Tarmac development at the top edge of Atlantic wharf—which is really the southern tip of the present commercial centre of Cardiff—and any developments near the pier head. Many of us know Tarmac's Atlantic 2000 development well, because members of our families are working on it. It is within easy walking distance of the city centre: that is one of its attractions. Other areas are very different, and cannot be considered extensions of the city centre.

Mr. Jones: The hon. Gentleman is not being consistent. He cannot have it both ways. He cannot make that point while claiming, as he did in an earlier debate, that the dockside area alongside the Tarmac development is in need of management. Similarly, he related all his claims about the inland bay to that dockside area.
The hon. Member for Neath asked which utilities were covered by the reference on page 12 of the appraisal. The description is the same as in earlier appraisals, and covers gas, electricity and water. The £34 million figure represents the total cost of enhanced infrastructure, the bulk of which will be met by service companies. The development corporation will contribute, but its contribution will be refundable as the demand for services builds up.
The hon. Member for Neath also asked whether the cost figure assumed constant price inflation. The £152 million figure represents the cost at current prices. The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley)

asked how the leverage ratio had been calculated. That is set out on page 19 of the appraisal. The calculation was made on the same basis as that in the January 1990 economic appraisal.
The hon. Gentleman claimed that Tarmac had said that the barrage was not important to it. Tarmac actually said that, while its South crescent development was not dependent on the barrage, it firmly believed that the development of the whole of south Cardiff, including the waterfront, could not be successfully undertaken without the barrage. Tarmac also welcomes the Government's decision to introduce the barrage Bill as a catalyst for quality investment.
Opposition Members have not dwelt on the figures in the economic appraisal, and it may be helpful if I mention them. The same answer keeps coming back. According to the appraisal, there will be 23,200 permanent jobs with the barrage and 13,000 without it. There will be 8,800 construction man year without the barrage; with the barrage, there will be 7,700 more. The net present value without the barrage is minus £153 million, while constructing the barrage will provide an advantage of £272 million.
As for leverage, £3.9 per £1 of taxpayers' money would be achieved without the barrage. With the barrage, that is virtually doubled, to £7.50 of private sector investment for every £1 from the taxpayer. However we look at the question, on the best analysis—and the appraisal certainly provides the best analysis—we repeatedly see the gain to be achieved by building the barrage.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: The Minister said earlier that the 7.5 multiplier came from a document produced in January 1990. We had then been in recession for only one quarter. Now that we have had three years of recession, and many believe that we are moving rapidly towards a slump, should not the cost-benefit multiplier be recalculated?

Mr. Jones: I can reassure the hon. Gentleman. Exactly that happened with the KPMG report, which was published this month and to which the other three consultants also contributed. Page 3 states:
The leverage ratio of the barrage scenario is estimated to be 7.5, Whilst the leverage ratio of the without barrage scenario is 3.9. Therefore, the barrage scenario has an advantage of 3.6 over the without barrage scenario in terms of its leverage ratio.
I invite the hon. Gentleman to study the latest economic appraisal, which confirms the repeated claim in the earlier appraisals that we commissioned—that the barrage scenario is robust, and that not building the barrage would be the worst possible way to proceed.
The barrage is not just for Cardiff, as the hon. Member for Neath suggested. He was answered very solidly by the hon. Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones), who pointed out that in attempting to gain new inward investment Cardiff is repeatedly shown to have the edge over other cities because of the redevelopment and the barrage proposal, which are generating enthusiasm.
What the appraisal does not include is any attempt to calculate the level of job creation outside Cardiff bay, let alone in the rest of Cardiff and south Wales as a whole. With such a massive investment in the south Wales economy, further benefits will clearly result—beyond what has been estimated so well in the economic appraisal. I hope that the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs.


Clwyd) will agree with me. I recall that she said at the outset that she wanted growth and expansion in south Wales, and this is the way to achieve it.
What emerges most clearly from the debate is that Opposition Members revel in gloom and doom. If they want to bring that about, they should indeed oppose the building of the barrage.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister has again failed to address some fundamental questions on the subject of cost. The Government's argument in support of the Bill is that the development would involve a huge injection of capital and public-sector investment, which ought to be greeted with uncritical enthusiasm. The Minister made that point again tonight. He has still to persuade us that concentrating investment on a particular area will not be at the expense of investment elsewhere.
The Government are on record as reaffirming that sufficient funding will be made available to enable the Cardifff Bay development corporation to complete its task —whatever the final price, I assume. That causes us several difficulties. We all know that the Government are now making crucial decisions on public expenditure priorities. The Minister must tell us whether he can justify the public expenditure costs involved in the barrage itself, and in other barrage-related projects, against the needs of Wales as a whole.
I find it difficult to take seriously what the Minister says about jobs. The Secretary of State seemed to experience some difficulty in listing the jobs that he claims to have created in Wales. Last week, he told us that 10,000 jobs had been created following the establishment of the Deeside industrial park. The true figure is nearer 5,000. There is a considerable difference between the two. On the same day, the Minister also asserted that there had been 8,000 job losses at Shotton steelworks. In fact, 10,000 jobs have been lost. Far from creating 20 per cent. more jobs than were lost, the Government have created 50 per cent. fewer. Whenever the Minister makes job promises, he falls well below the standards of statistical accuracy that we expect from the Welsh Office.
The Minister also seeks to persuade us that there will be new jobs for the valleys. Past promises of new jobs for the valleys have not materialised. The main economic aim of the valleys initiative, created in 1988, was to bring between 25,000 and 30,000 new jobs to the valleys. When the programme was created in 1988, male unemployment in the valleys was 18.9 per cent. In April of this year—we are waiting for the new figures—it was 18.7 per cent. The new figures for which we are waiting will undoubtedly show a further rise in unemployment. Therefore, the valleys initiative failed in its major aim.
8 pm
My hon. Friends know that the jobless figures are increasing all the time. With the closure of the pits, more job losses are on the way. The question addressed by the amendments, which is a major concern for us, arises from the blank cheque that seems to be available for the Cardiff bay development and from the no cheque at all for the urgent needs of other parts of Wales, particularly the valleys.
The rest of Wales cannot fail to feel anxious. In particular, the valleys cannot fail to feel anxious. They so

desperately need investment to compensate for the acute deprivation in those areas. There can be few regions in Europe that have had to accept as much economic restructuring since the war as the valleys of south Wales. Social and economic deprivation of the kind found in the valleys is not easily eradicated. It is dishonest of the Government to suggest otherwise.
Bearing in mind the Government's stranglehold on local authorities in Wales in both revenue and capital spending, I am certain that none of them would be allowed to spend anything like the amount that is to be spent by the Cardiff Bay development corporation. The Government's intention to scrap the Barnett formula for public expenditure makes the amendments even more critical.

Mr. Rowlands: By the nature of the guillotine and the fact that the Government intend to push the Bill through at speed, it appears that capital expenditure on this scheme is immune from any public expenditure cuts. Has my hon. Friend heard whether equal immunity applies to vital capital expenditure programmes of the kind that we need in our communities?

Mrs. Clwyd: My hon. Friend makes a pertinent point. We require that assurance tonight from the Minister. I have not heard that important capital projects that are needed in Wales will be immune from the public expenditure cuts. We should welcome such an assurance from the Minister. Can he tell us whether these capital expenditure projects will be immune?
As the Government have curtailed consideration of the Bill, we do not intend to press the amendment to a Division. Nevertheless, we should like the Minister to tell us how he intends to balance spending on this one project within spending on other important projects. We recognise that the project is important to south Cardiff. It is important for the regeneration of the Cardiff docks area. We want to know, however, how the Government intend to balance spending on the barrage project against other urgent and pressing projects in Wales.

Mr. Jonathan Evans: I have heard the hon. Lady twice refer to the Barnett formula. As a Member for a Welsh constituency, I was concerned to hear her declare for the second time that the Barnett formula is to be scrapped. Perhaps she will refer me to the announcement that has been made concerning the scrapping of the formula.

Mrs. Clwyd: I suggest that the hon. Gentleman should ask his hon. Friends to assure him that the Barnett formula is not to be scrapped. The Secretary of State for Wales was unable to give me that assurance. Until he gives it to me, we shall presume that the Barnett formula is to be scrapped. I see that the Under-Secretary of State does not wish to give us that assurance tonight. On that basis, I say again that the Opposition's arguments on costs and the questions that we have asked the Secretary of State for Wales have not been answered, which we consider to be extremely unsatisfactory.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (9) below'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this, it will he convenient to take the following amendments: No. 84, in page 1, line 7, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (10) below'.
No. 85, in page 1, line 14, leave out 'associated' and insert
'consequential environmental and coastal protection.'.
No. 12, in page 2, line 24, at end insert
'(7) The Development Corporation shall not commence the works referred to in subsection (1) above, until it has made and published in full an agreement with Associated British Ports in relation to the control of water abstraction rights at the Blackweir Dock Feeder.'.
No. 13, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
'(8) At least 8 weeks prior to the commencement of any works, the Development Corporation shall consult South Glamorgan County Council on the proposed pattern of traffic movements during the construction period, including the hours of operation. At least 6 weeks prior to the commencement of works the Development Corporation shall publish proposals, amended in the light of those consultations, for a 2 week period of public consultation.'
No. 89, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
'(9) No structure or structures shall be constructed until after the completion of an environmental impact assessment statement as laid down in Annexe I of the Environmental Impact Assessments Directive of the European Community.'.
No. 90, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
'(I0) The Corporation shall not commence the works specified in Schedule Ito this Act until sewer diversion works ensuring full compliance with the European Community Municipal Wastewater Treatment Directive for Water, entering the impoundment shall have been completed.'.
No. 92, in page 2, line 35, at end add—
'(15) The Development Corporation shall consult the angling interests on the rivers Twey, Taff and Ely in respect of the design and execution of the works relating to fish passes in Work No. I of Schedule 1 to this Act.'.
No. 24, in page 3, line 12, clause 2, at end add—
`(7) before executing any of the works authorised by section 1 above, the Development Corporation shall publish proposals in cooperation with the National Rivers Authority showing how it will comply with the European Community Municipal Wastewater Directive'.
(8) Before executing any of the works authorised by Section I above, the Development Corporation shall publish proposals for a low flow water budget specifying the sources of water to meet the demands of the fish passes, sluices, lock gates and Dock Feeder and the water sources of water to match those requirements under such low flow conditions.'.
No. 95, in page 3, line 21, clause 4, at beginning insert 'subject to subsection (6) below'.
No. 97, in page 3, line 42, clause 4, at end add—
'(6) In executing any of the powers authorised by subsections (1) to (3) above, the Development Corporation shall not discriminate between different classes of landowner or occupier.'.
No. 29, in page 4, line 16, clause 7, at end insert
'and the residential areas affected by its creation'.
No. 99, in page 4, line 16, clause 7, at end insert
'and shall be exercised so as to give priority to the flow of water in the fish passes at periods of low flow'.
No. 101, in page 4, line 25, clause 8, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (7) below'.
No. 32, in page 4, line 26, clause 8, leave out 'reasonable'.
No. 33, in page 4, line 28, clause 8, after 'protect' add 'or improve'.
No. 35, in page 4, line 38, clause 8, leave out 'reasonably'
No. 36, in page 4, line 40, clause 8, after 'current', insert 'and prospective'.
No. 37, in page 5, line 6, clause 8, leave out 'reasonable'.
No. 38, in page 5, line 10, clause 8, after 'Corporation', insert
'in co-operation with, and on the advice of the Environmental Health Officers of the Cardiff City councils and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council.'
No. 39, in page 5, line 24, clause 8, leave out subsection (6).
No. 40, in page 5, line 28, clause 8, leave out 'the Secretary of State' and insert
'a committee of arbitration of three persons to be nominated by the Secretary of State, the Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers.'.
No. 41, in page 5, line 29, clause 8, at end add
'(7) The Development Corporation shall publish an annual report on all such disputes.'.
No. 104, in page 5, line 46, clause 9, at end insert—
'(d) the maintenance and enjoyment of residential amenities on land adjacent to the inland bay.'.
No. 53, in page 6, line 4, clause 9, at end insert—
'(4) The Development Corporation shall have regard when operating the barrage, to the need to minimise damage to property, both residential and industrial and increases in industrial costs for businesses on or near the inland bay.'.
No. 57, in page 7, line 1, clause 12, leave out 'reasonable'.
No. 58, in page 7, line 18, clause 12, at end insert—
'(5) Nothing in this section shall interfere with the right of the Development Corporation to challenge in the courts the reasonableness of any direction given under subsection (1)(b) above.'.
No. 59, in page 7, line 19, clause 12, leave out subsection (5).
No. 60, in page 7, line 21, clause 12, leave out from 'to' to end and add
'an arbitration panel comprising three persons nominated by respectively the Secretary of State, the Cardiff City Council and Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council and the Institute of Environmental Health Officers'.

Mr. Murphy: Although we may now be in a slightly calmer mood than we were when we discussed the guillotine motion, there is one matter of principle, as this group of amendments is far-reaching, to which the Minister ought to refer. Why is it that, during all the months of consideration of the Bill—we were told by the Leader of the House this afternoon how many hours we had spent upon it—we found that amendments tabled not just by my hon. Friends who oppose the Cardiff Bay barrage scheme, but also those tabled on behalf of its supporters—including my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), Cardiff city council, of which the Minister used to be a member, and other responsible bodies—have not been accepted, apart from a few anodyne ones.
When the Government had a huge majority, they thought that they could do anything they liked and steamroller whatever legislation they wished through the House. If the Secretary of State for Wales and the Minister are serious about there being consensus in local government and about how Wales is run, some of the amendments that have been tabled in the past few months, and certainly those tabled today and last week, were worthy of something more than summary dismissal. This group of amendments is far reaching and varied.
Amendments Nos. 83, 84 and 85 relate to environmental and coastal protection. They were tabled because of the need to tighten up the responsibility of both the Cardiff


Bay development corporation and the Welsh Office. The drafting of the Bill is both sloppy and poor. The amendments would improve its drafting.
Amendment No. 12 refers to Associated British Ports and to co-operation between that body and the development corporation. Amendment No. 13 is of considerable interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth, as this is his constituency. The amendment refers to traffic movements while the bay is being constructed and to the need to consult local authorities, particularly South Glamorgan county council and local residents, about the nature of the construction work and to ensure that any disruption is minimised.
Amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 24 concern European Community regulations regarding the environmental impact assessment and the diversion of sewer works. The Minister did not provide a satisfactory answer when we discussed the matter in Committee, so we are keen to ask him why it is that the Government have decided to choose a different annex of the environmental impact assessment directive of the European Community. For some reason, the Government have decided to choose the weaker of the two. That means that they do not have to take account of, or to publish the views of, regulatory agencies; they are required to publish only the views of consultants.
Amendments Nos. 92 and 99 relate to consultation with anglers over fish passes and other associated matters. There is bound to be an increase in angling for salmon in the rivers Taff and Ely. There should be more substantial consultation with and representation for the angling community in Wales.
Amendments Nos. 35 to 41 and 57 to 60 deal with the National Rivers Authority and the so-called reasonable nature of the directive that it gives the Cardiff Bay development corporation.
The last matter covered by the amendments is of much importance, and the Minister should pay close attention to it. The National Rivers Authority has identified a number of important matters such as surface water flooding, ground water flooding, sea defence, polluted rivers and fishing. Given its statutory duty to protect the environment and the residents of Cardiff, the NRA is in a different position from the development corporation, which was set up to develop Cardiff.
The Bill's provisions on arbitration are unsatisfactory. The Secretary of State should not be the person to resolve any differences between the National Rivers Authority and the Cardiff Bay development corporation, for the simple reason that members of Cardiff Bay development corporation are appointed by the Secretary of State and are responsible only to him. How can he be a fair and proper judge of conflicts between the statutory National Rivers Authority and the Cardiff Bay development corporation? We argued and debated that in Committee, but we believe that it is so important that it should be debated on the Floor of the House.
There are many different amendments and the Minister will have to spend some time on them. We believe them to be of great significance and we are disappointed that we have not had longer to discuss them.

Mr. Alun Michael: I am grateful for the helpful way in which my hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) moved the

amendments. As he rightly said, a number of them are constructive and helpful. They seek clarity on the involvement of local authorities.
It is clear that the decisions of the development corporation have been assisted by the involvement of local authorities. The Government's mechanisms have often gone wrong when they have not sought to consult local authorities, which have the benefit of years of experience. That is particularly apposite to the advice of environmental health officers, which one of the amendments seeks to include in the Bill. That need not be written into the Bill, but the requirements of the Bill help to ensure that there is confidence on all sides and that relevant factors are taken into consideration.
The situation of anglers is important. From being worried at an early stage, I have been impressed by the amount of consultation to ensure that the design of the barrage will allow the passage of fish and therefore will offer improvements to anglers in the bay area and further up the river. The amendments seek to underline and underwrite the guarantees that have been given on those issues.
8.15 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen rightly foresaw that I would want to speak specifically to amendment No. 13, to which I referred briefly in the debate on the guillotine motion. The Minister responded in a way that I can only describe as not wholly negative. May I press him a little further, however? I think that he was suggesting that, because much of the material for the construction of the barrage can come from the seaward side or through the docks area, there will not necessarily have to be many movements through the streets of my constituency. I am certain that he is right, and I accept his comments in the constructive sense in which he made them, but things change over time, as we have found all too often.
There have been major changes, for example, in the way in which work on the primary distributor road has been undertaken through Butetown, and whereas the end result will be greatly to the benefit of my constituents, as "cut and cover" means that the community will not be split in two, it is certain that the extent of the engineering works has been greatly increased. Thus, in the short term, it has had a quite devastating effect on Mount Stuart primary school and on the people who live in the area. Some of the damage to the immediate environment in the construction period was not sufficiently appreciated in advance of the work starting. Most of those involved would now agree with that in the light of experience.
I am seeking a requirement for consultation in advance so that traffic movements can be taken fully into account and so that those who are making the arrangements will listen to two voices—that of the county council, with its elected representatives and technical expertise to assess the likely impact of traffic movements and, secondly, that of the local community. The amendment does not seek to cause delay or problems because the Bill provides for consultation rather than requirements that would be difficult for any organisation to meet.
To the extent that traffic movements can be confined to the seaward end or through Alexandra docks, as the Minister suggested, amendment No.13 places no burden on the development corporation or on those involved in


the construction. It becomes relevant, therefore, only if there is a problem involving traffic movements through domestic streets.
In that event, the safeguard of the amendment would enable local people to know that the county council would have a chance of commenting constructively, as I am sure it would, on proposed traffic movements and would offer those local people the opportunity of commenting before work began. Had that been so in relation to the primary distributor road, bearing in mind the changes that had to be made at late stages, I am certain that some of the problems could have been avoided and overcome. Instead, amendments to the arrangements had to be made on the hoof, and things that should have been anticipated were dealt with almost in retrospect.
I ask the Minister to recognise the constructive nature of many of the amendments and the fact that, if taken with the helpful way in which he has sought to respond to how traffic movements will be managed, amendment No.13 would be constructive, would be seen as a form of reassurance to my constituents and would not place any difficulties in the way of the development corporation or the construction industry in getting on with the job of building the barrage.

Mr. Alan W. Williams: I should like to make a few comments in support of amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 24.
Amendment No. 89 seeks an environmental impact assessment according to the European directive. The other two amendments refer to the sewer diversion works and the European Community's directive municipal waste water treatment.
There are real and serious environmental problems in setting up a barrage on the Taff and the Ely. That is the case for any estuary barrage. In view of the condition of the water in the Taff and the Ely, I have no doubt that the wisest thing to do is to let it flow out to sea as quickly as possible. About 500,000 people live upstream from the Taff and the Ely, so the water has a high nutrient load. Either sewage or digested sewage gives nitrates and phosphates, so the water is nutrient-rich.
The map in the National Rivers Authority's survey of rivers, canals and estuaries in England and Wales in 1990 shows that the Taff and the Ely are the most polluted rivers in Wales. Fortunately, Wales is mainly rural and most of our rivers are good in terms of sewage and nutrients. However, the Ely is poor along most of its length and is in the bottom tenth in terms of quality of water. The Taff, with its tributaries the Cynon and Rhondda, especially around Cardiff, is of only fair quality. It is in the bottom quarter of rivers in terms of quality.
The Severn estuary, around the Taff and the Ely, around Cardiff and around Bristol, is the most heavily polluted and the poorest in quality around the Welsh coast. Simply on environmental and pollution grounds, the Taff and the Ely are the last rivers that we should think of damming or blocking with a barrage purely in terms of the environment. The impounded water will be polluted.
During the winter when there is heavy rain, there will be quite a good outflow of the impounded water and the retention time in the barrage will be only three, four or five days. In the summer, especially in dry summers, the square mile of water held back will have an average retention time of up to 50 days. I have been told that the water will be concentrated in terms of nitrates and phosphates. In hot

summers, there will be problems of eutrophication. That is clearly admitted by the proponents of the scheme and in all comments on the scheme.
How does one deal with the environmental problems as they arise? There will be eutrophication and algal blooms. There are two solutions to the problem of algal blooms. One is to skim off the algae that have proliferated and the second is to pump oxygen into the water. Both will have to be applied.
I am glad that there is a requirement in the Bill that there should be not less than 5 mg dissolved oxygen per litre at all times. The water should at all times be at least 50 per cent. saturated in terms of oxygen content. The question then is what one does when the water is low in oxygen. The answer in the Bill is to pump in oxygen.
Unfortunately, pumping in oxygen is an unproven technology. The River Towy in my constituency has problems downstream from Carmarthen because of the sewage load entering the river there. In hot summers it has a low oxygen content. We have oxygen injection equipment in Carmarthen to resuscitate the river, but it does not work.
In the Select Committee, I was anxious to find out whether there had been detailed research into the problem. I refer to the proceedings of the Select Committee and I will quote a brief extract from the evidence given by the NRA on 13 February 1992. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) asked Dr. Charles Pattinson, the NRA's expert on the condition of water, various questions about oxygenation equipment. The hon. Member for Wyre Forest said:
Perhaps I could explore some aspects of the technology with you. First of all, the vitox machines. How old are they? How long have they been in use in various parts of the world?
The answer was:
I am afraid I do not know.
That is the expert on oxygen injection. Dr. Pattinson then said:
A number of years; but I am afraid that I am not aware of the exact length of time; but bearing in mind we were discussing these things with the Corporation in 1988 or 1987 they were proven pieces of equipment available on the market at that time; so they have been around for a number of years.
The next question was:
Have you had any personal experience with them?
The answer was, "Not myself." The next question was, "Have you seen one?" The reply was:
I have seen videos of them. I did not actually participate personally in the original programme, but I have seen videos of them.
It strikes me that, in building the barrage, we know that there will frequently be problems of low oxygen in hot summers. We seem to be depending on oxygenating water. However, the expert from the NRA said that he had no experience of the machines involved, but that he had only seen videos of them.
The Library has prepared neutrally for us an excellent research note on the barrage. The note says of oxygen and the resuscitation equipment:
field trials have not been able to demonstrate unequivocally that injected oxygen is effectively dissolved, dispersed and retained.
It is an unproven technology.
I have serious doubts which have not been allayed in Committee or by what I have read of the NRA's evidence to us. We could create a major environmental problem. We will be damming the two most polluted rivers in Wales. Some 500,000 people live along their length. The water is


nutrient-rich, especially at times of low water flow. In hot summers, there will be algal blooms and problems of low oxygen. My serious concern is that we shall not be able to solve those problems.
If amendments Nos. 89, 90 and 24 were accepted, we should require a 1992 environmental impact assessment to European standards. The sewer diversions which will need to be carried out around Cardiff must conform to the highest standard in accordance with the EC municipal waste water treatment objective. I ask the Minister and the Government seriously to consider accepting the amendment.

Mr. Morgan: I will reinforce some of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams) on the low flow budget with which amendments Nos. 12 and 99 deal. Will the Government allow the day to pass without telling us a little more about whether they have managed to strike an agreement with Associated British Ports about the amount of water for which it has an abstraction licence? Will it take water out of the Taff during summer droughts which could mean that little new water comes down the river to top up the water behind the barrage?
8.30 pm
That is a serious problem, because Associated British Ports is a major player in this game and the company's view will be important in deciding how or whether the barrage will work. ABP has abstraction rights at Blackweir that are greater than the total flow of the Taff during drought periods such as that which occurred during August 1991. ABP does not exercise those rights fully now because of the decline of the steel industry, for which the feeder was originally intended, and the decline of the docks, but nevertheless it has the right to abstract 4 cu m per second. We need to know whether ABP has agreed to give up some of its abstraction rights, which date back to the building of Cardiff docks in the 1840s and the construction of the feeder to top up the level of the docks, without which the export of coal from south Wales could not have taken place. That historic right gives ABP complete control over the jugular vein as regards the water quality of the lake.
The amendments are about water quality in general and amendments Nos. 12 and 99 are particularly related to the question whether the Government as yet have a written undertaking from ABP that it will give up its right to abstract 4 cu m per second at Blackweir. If they do not, it is irresponsible of them to attempt to persuade the House to pass the Bill.
At first I thought that, among the copious documents with which the Government were good enough to provide us last week, was a set of legal undertakings between the National Rivers Authority, the development corporation and the City of Cardiff in relation to the problem of ABP's abstraction rights. Not being a lawyer, I am never completely sure what I have just read, but as far as I am aware, the documents do not cover that problem. We still do not know, therefore, whether the Government have an operable low flow budget. It will not be operable unless ABP gives up its rights at Blackweir. We raised this problem in Committee in July. We were not given an

answer then, and we should not allow tonight's proceedings to end without getting an understanding on that from the Government.
Many people believed that the pretty favourable terms on which the Government agreed to rent the new office block built by ABP's property subsidiary, Grosvenor Waterside, had something to do with this matter. That property was pre-let to the Government quango, the Welsh Health Common Services Authority, just before the last election and we thought that the handsome rent may have been agreed upon in return for an undertaking by ABP not to torpedo the Bill by saying, "If you want to make a lake you must buy our abstraction rights at Blackweir. If you do not, the lake will be an algae-infested swamp"—as it will be in periods of low flow such as those that occurred in 1986 and 1991, when the problems of nutrient-rich water referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Carmarthen will arise.
If the Minister does not come clean with us tonight, the water will not come clean into Cardiff bay. Without the salt water flushing effect provided by the tide water, we shall have to depend heavily on the quality of the water flowing into the lake. About a third of the flow of the Taff and half the flow of the Ely consists of treated sewage, so we need to know what controls there will be. If an ABP takes water off to top up the docks or provide cooling water for the Allied Steel and Wire finishing mills around the edge of the Bute east dock, the water quality system will not be operable.
The Minister has been good enough to say, albeit late in the day, that he will be accepting five amendments tabled by the Opposition, and the spirit of a sixth, amendment No. 13. It is good that he has suddenly been overtaken by the belief that some of the Opposition's ideas are better than the Government's—as they have been on so many things recently. However, as happened during the pit closures debate last week, the Government seem to have come only half way towards meeting our concerns and have stopped short of significant concessions.
The Minister has accepted that it would be a good idea if the two riparian local authorities were represented on the advisory committee. That is fair enough, but the same should also apply to our proposal that an arbitration panel should have the last word on matters relating to water quality in the event of a dispute developing between the development corporation and the NRA. That panel should include representatives of the local authorities, the Institute of Environmental Health Officers and the Secretary of State.
Why does not the Minister accept amendment No. 60 in the spirit in which he has accepted amendments Nos. 66 and 64 which deal with the advisory committee? That would remove much of the worry that the Secretary of State would fix any decisions in favour of the quango for which he is responsible and against the NRA, for which he is not responsible because it is a Department of the Environment quango. Having accepted the principle of local authority involvement, it would not be difficult for the Minister to come the other 50 per cent. of the way and so avoid the suggestion that matters can be fixed by the Secretary of State and his mates on the development corporation.
Let us get away from the idea of the Secretary of State and his mates. Let us bring in the local authorities and give them a voice. Why not have a proper, neutral, objective arbitration panel and give it the last word on water quality,


so that those of us who represent areas around the lake and care about what it looks like in summer and whether or not it is an amenity, some guarantee that independent and objective advice will be available and that the panel will have the last word in the event of a dispute.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) referred to the spirit of reasonableness in which I had agreed to accept amendments. But that is exactly the spirit in which I started off last Tuesday, in introducing new clause 1 and moving related amendments. What did the hon. Gentleman do? Was he reasonable? No. He went into the Lobby seeking to vote down proposals made in response to requests from him made in Committee. I continue to try to be as reasonable as possible and to accept whatever amendments I can. I hope that my reply will be full reassurance to the hon. Gentleman.
I have been doubly struck by a feeling of déjà vu. After the speech by the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Williams), I found what he said echoed clearly at columns 119 and 120 of the Committee Hansard of 2 July. On that occasion, too, the hon. Member for Cardiff, West spoke directly after him and said that he was rising to reinforce some of the comments made by his hon. Friend.
The hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) was critical of what he called sloppiness. I take it that he means to be helpful and to remove vagueness from the wording, but I would point out to him that clause 1 specifically confers authority to execute only those works specified in schedule 1. The barrage and the outer harbour are listed in clause 1(1)(a). It follows, therefore, that the associated structures of the Penarth head promenade and the breasting dolphins are included. The breasting dolphins are neither environmental nor for coastal protection but for the protection of shipping. There is nothing vague about that.
The hon. Gentleman went on to refer to annexe 2 to the Council directive on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private sector projects on the environment. That merely lists classes of project for which an environmental assessment must be required in accordance with measures adopted by member states. In contrast, annexe 2 lists classes of projects which are to be made subject to assessments where member states consider that their characteristics so require. However, there is no difference in the type of environmental statements produced under annexe 1 or annexe 2.

Mr. Morgan: Does the Minister accept that, under annexe 2, the design of the environmental impact assessment is entirely different from the EIA under annexe 1? Under annexe 1, it is compulsory to consult the regulatory bodies such as the NRA and the environmental health officer of Cardiff city council in this case. That was not done because the easy annexe 1 EIA was used, not the more difficult type under annexe 2.

Mr. Jones: That is not a new point. I have carried out research, and I am assured that there is no difference. I remind the hon. Gentleman that Standing Order 27(A) for private business introduces a requirement for EIAs to be submitted in relation to certain classes of project for authorisation by means of private legislation of this kind. An EIA statement has been submitted in accordance with the Standing Order in respect of the Bill. The assessment of the environmental impact project, to which the directive

applies, is carried out as part of the consent procedure. In relation to projects proposed to be authorised by Act of Parliament, the assessment is carried out by Parliament in its consideration of the Bill.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) again referred to amendment No. 13. The barrage is a major construction project, and clearly, people who live in the area have legitimate concerns about how the impact of construction traffic can be kept to a minimum. I appreciate that, and it was very telling when the hon. Gentleman referred to the impact of the present construction on Mount Stuart primary school.
The issue has been fully considered in the EIA. Page 100 of the statement outlines the main impact of construction traffic for the barrage. It makes the point that the majority of the materials are likely to be brought to the site by water or by rail thus reducing significantly the project's traffic impact.
The proposed traffic measures are set out in page 137 of the environmental statement. The main site access will be through Queen Alexandra dock. The road access through the Penarth marina at the southern end of the barrage will be severely restricted and limited to personnel access and special abnormal loads on a very limited basis. Personnel access will be by bus from adjoining parking areas, possibly on the Ferry road site as the most likely and convenient location.
I understand why the amendments have been tabled. However, I contend that their spirit has already been complied with by the publication of the environmental assessment which covers those points, but I look forward to what is in the environmental assessment working to satisfy the local community through the offices of the highway authority.

Mr. Michael: I appreciate the constructive way in which the Minister is approaching the discussion. As he clearly will not accept the amendment, does he expect the development corporation to undertake the kind of consultations, in general terms, that are outlined in the amendment without that being a legal requirement? If he could confirm that, I am sure that that would give us some confidence in accepting the way forward that he has suggested.

Mr. Jones: I hope that I can satisfy the hon. Gentleman. Yes, that would be my expectation. I would regard it as normal and proper that there would be appropriate consultations and that there would be the greatest regard for the local community.
Amendment No. 24 deals with the urban waste water directive and the water budget. I oppose the first part of the amendment. The NRA has not asked for the development corporation's proposals for complying with the urban waste water directive to be published. As for publishing details of the water budget, I agree the principle involved. Paragraph 4(c) of schedule 3 requires that,
before the commencement of construction of the barrage",
the corporation must submit to the NRA for approval proposals of how the minimum flow of water through the fish pass should be maintained.
I explained in Standing Committee that work was in progress on such an agreement. In particular, it will be necessary to agree with Associated British Ports a limitation of the flow down the Taff feeder. Negotiations between ABP and the corporation on that issue have


progressed well since Standing Committee. The discussions between the corporation and ABP have been carried out in a very constructive manner, and I understand that the parties consider that agreement on the quantity of the water that ABP requires is very close. I am happy to give an undertaking that the information submitted to the NRA in compliance with paragraph 4(c) of schedule 3 will be published before construction begins.
8.45 pm
Amendment No. 12 deals with a related point. I cannot accept the wording of the amendment as drafted, but I am happy to publish details of the water budget—subject, of course, to the agreement of Associated British Ports. Amendments Nos. 32, 35, 37 to 40 and 57 to 60 are similar in principle to amendments tabled in Standing Committee. I have to resist them now, for the same reasons that I had to resist their predecessors: they would weaken the NRA's powers of control over the barrage and inland bay.
The Government do not envisage many, if any, references to the Secretary of State on the basis that directions by the NRA are unreasonable. However, without the test of reasonableness, there would be no basis on which a potential dispute between the NRA and the development corporation could be considered by my right hon. Friend or by the arbitration committee proposed by the amendments. The test of reasonableness is therefore familiar in law. We do not wish to see the Secretary of State take over the N RA's functions, as it has statutory responsibility for those matters. Still less do we wish to see an arbitration committee of the type proposed usurp functions in which the NRA has a national role.
The appropriate and well precedented way of determining such disputes between two statutory bodies is reference to the Secretary of State. The ultimate guarantee of his objectivity is the fact that his decision would be potentially subject to judicial review. We do not wish to see two statutory bodies resorting to the courts in the way envisaged in the amendments.

Mr. Murphy: Will the Minister quote the precedents to which he has just referred?

Mr. Jones: I do not think that I can quote the precedents off the top of my head. However, I will write to the hon. Gentleman.
The environmental health functions of the district council are already covered appropriately in the regulations that will be made to protect the interests of the city council and in clause 15(4)(c) and (d), which require consultation with the council on byelaws in the area including those regulating water sports. The additional reference proposed in the amendments is therefore superfluous.
The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) moved an identical amendment in Committee to amendment No. 92. He appeared to accept that there was no need for further consultation with angling interests and he withdrew the amendment. I know that he had hoped to secure a place on the Cardiff bay advisory committee for the angling interests on the Taff and Ely in return for withdrawing his amendment. However, I was unable to respond positively, for reasons that I explained at the time.
There is fully adequate control over the design of the fish pass. That has been the subject of extensive consultations with the NRA which has now agreed a design which is much more complex than the design that was first proposed. The NRA is the appropriate statutory body with responsibility for the protection of fisheries. In addition, clause 7(1)(c) requires the corporation to operate the barrage in accordance with any reasonable direction of the NRA to protect fish in the inland bay or allow the passage of migratory fish to or from the bay.
The design of the fish pass also requires the approval of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. That relates to schedule 3, paragraph 4(1)(d). I am not aware of any remaining problems on the issue which would justify reopening the design of the fish pass. Indeed, none of the angling interests petitioned against the Bill.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 2

WORKS: SUPPLEMENTARY

Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment No. 14, in page 2, line 37, after 'use', insert 'and that sluices are operational'.
I understand that the Government accept this amendment.

Mr. Gwilym Jones: The Government have no difficulty in accepting this amendment, but the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) may wish to reflect on whether it is necessary. Clearly, the sluices must be operational before the Rivers Taff and Ely are totally obstructed. The proposed method of construction requires that locks and sluices be completed and operational before work commences on in-filling the last 250 m gap between the embankment and the structures at the Penarth end of the barrage. Schedule 3. paragraph 2(1)(ii) requires that works or operations shall not be commenced until details have been approved by the National Rivers Authority. I can assure hon. Members that the NRA would insist that the sluices were operational before the rivers were finally obstructed. Nonetheless, I am happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Murphy: I beg to move amendment. No. 15, in page 2, line 39, after 'agree', insert
', for reasons of better flood protection and for no other reason,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 98, in clause 7, page 4, line 16, at end insert
'and the residential, commercial and recreational land and property affected by the impoundment and the associated rise in groundwater.'.
No. 100, in clause 7, page 4, line 19, leave out 'or alleviate'.
No. 30, in clause 7, page 4, line 19, after 'flooding', insert
'including flooding by impregnation of the soil'.
No. 34, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, after 'flooding', insert
', including flooding by impregnation of the soil'.
No. 102, in clause 8, page 4, line 30, after 'flooding', insert
including by saturation of the ground through rising ground water'.


No. 103, in clause 8, page 5, line 29, at end acid—
'(7) The Development Corporation shall operate the barrage in accordance with directions from the Cardiff City Council in order
(a) to alleviate flooding arising from rising ground water levels; and'.
No. 42, in clause 9, page 5, line 34, leave out 'between' and insert 'of.
No. 43, in clause 9, page 5, line 34, leave out 'and four and a half.
No. 44, in clause 9, page 5, line 34, leave out 'or thereabouts'.
No. 75, in clause 20, page 12, line 13, after 'repairing', insert 'and compensating financially for.'
No. 115, in clause 20, page 12, line 13, after 'property', insert
`including the making of financial compensation for such damage'.
No. 136, in clause 20, page 12, line 13 after 'property', insert health and amenity'.
No. 76, in clause 20, page 12, line 17, at end insert
provided that no such regulation shall affect the entitlement of any persons to groundwater damage protection'.
No. 77, in clause 20, page 12, line 17, at end insert
'; but no regulations shall be made which will reduce the rights, powers and duties under Schedule 7.'.
No. 78, in clause 20, page 12, line 17 at end insert—
'(2A) Before making any regulation under subsection (2) above the Secretary of State shall consult any persons or bodies whose entitlement to groundwater damage protection may be affected by the regulation.'.
No. 79, in clause 20, page 12, line 17 at end insert—
'(3) No amendment shall be made under (2) above which shall in any way abridge reduce or limit the rights to protection by way of works, financial compensation or access to information of those occupying or owning property so affected.'.
No. 116, in clause 20, page 12, line 20 at end add—
'(4) The Secretary of State shall report to Parliament every three years from the date of impoundement on the operation of the groundwater damage protection provisions enacted under subsection (1) above.'.
No. 117, in clause 20, page 12, line 20 at end add—
'(5) The Secretary of State shall review the extent of the protected property area specified in Schedule 6 to this Act and may extend its coverage after each triannual review.'.
No. 137, in schedule 7, page 31, line 14 at end insert,
'in relation to persons, means a survey based on epdemiological or individual health measurement principles acceptable to the Medical Research Council and the General Medical Council, and in relation to amenity means a survey of domestic heating. comfort, micro-climate and other relevant indices of social well-being'.
No. 138, in schedule 7, page 33, line 27, at end insert—
(8) The Development Corporation shall carry out and publish a survey before impoundment shall commence of the health and well-being of the residential areas within the Protected Property Line, paying particular regard to the infant mortality rate, general morbidity and mortality rate domestic heating costs, micro-climate, incidence of fog and mist, hours of sunshine and levels of traffic accidents.
(9) The Development Corporation shall carry out repeat surveys at its own expense at the written request of and with reasonable notice from the advisory committee at intervals of net less than three years.'.
No. 126, in schedule 7, page 33, line 33, leave out '£40' and insert '£25'.
No. 139, in schedule 7, page 34, line 41, at end insert—
'(e) Carry out any investigation into cost of ambient temperature and microclimate within the residential areas falling within the Protected Property line and of allied changes in health, domestic heating costs, and traffic management requirements as is appropriate'.

No. 127, in schedule 7, page 35, line 24, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
No. 128, in schedule 7, page 35, line 26, at end add—
'(1A) Within the protected property area, the Development Corporation may not contest such a requirement except where it can prove that such property damage is attributable to other causes than groundwater damage arising from the impoundment.'.
No. 129, in schedule 7, page 35, line 37, leave out 'six' and insert 'three'.
No. 130, in schedule 7, page 37, line 23, at end insert
'or the property blight arising in the area in general where groundwater damage has occurred.'.
No. 131, in schedule 7, page 38, line 32, leave out
'a garden belonging to a relevant building'
and insert
'land except to the extent it is or forms part of a building'.
No. 132, in schedule 7, page 38, line 39, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
No. 133, in schedule 7, page 38, line 44, at end insert—
'(3) A person has a relevant interest in land if—

(a) he is entitled to dispose of the fee simple of the land or any part of it (whether in possession or reversion);
(b) he holds, or is entitled to the rents and profits of, the land or any part of it under a lease or agreement granted or extended for a term of years certain of which not less than three years remain unexpired; or
(c) he is a person entitled under Part I of the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 to acquire the freehold or an extended lease of the land or any part of it and has, on or before the relevant day, given notice under that Act to the landlord of his desire to have the freehold or an extended base; unless he is mortgagee not in possession.'.

No. 134, in schedule 7, page 38, line 45, leave out sub-paragraph (3).
No. 135, in schedule 7, page 39, line 39, leave out 'a garden' and insert 'land'.
No. 140, in schedule 7, page 39, line 47, at end insert—
'18A. If any person or group of persons resident within the Protected Property Line have or their legal guardians suffers damage to health or amenity, or incurs increased domestic heating costs, as a consequence of a rise in groundwater levels, compensation shall be payable by the Development Corporation.'.

Mr. Murphy: The House will know that one of the most significant problems that people have identified with the construction of the Cardiff bay barrage refers to groundwater levels and the possibility of flooding in other parts of our capital city. Because of the lack of time and because of the importance of this matter to the local press, I move the amendment and allow my hon. Friends to speak in whatever time is left.

Mr. Morgan: We are having to go at a speed, for obvious reasons, after the timetable motion. There is a large number of amendments to which we must refer briefly before the 9 o'clock deadline. Some of the amendments relate to the matter of dispute in Select Committee as it finished its consideration in February. The Cardiff Bay development corporation still took the view that it did not require any additional powers to be conferred on the Cardiff city council to deal with the problem of impregnation flooding as distinct from overground flooding by spillage of water from the rivers Taff and Ely into adjoining residential areas—classic flooding. It took the view that, if the Select Committee accepted the evidence that had been given by Dr. Miles and Professor Rushton that there could be another form of


flooding—flooding by impregnation—one could handle that in the same way that one would deal with over-the-bank flooding.
At the very minute that the Select Committee finished, the Queen's counsel representing the Cardiff Bay Development Corporation was still maintaining that there were precedents for dealing with impregnation flooding as well. He subsequently had to accept that he was wrong and that the Cardiff city council's view that it would require additional powers was right. As a result, the Government had to climb down, as on so many other matters recently, and accept that the Bill would now have to be changed, but in another place. We would much rather do that job in this place, which is why we have included amendments to grant powers to Cardiff city council to deal with impregnation flooding.
Obviously, the fears that exist in some residential areas, particularly those west of the River Taff relate to what is known as the urban swamp thesis. That matter was substantially discussed in Committee. Nobody wants to live in an urban swamp. If we are to have one, we will have to drain the swamp to enable people to enjoy the residential amenities that they deserve. That is why we had a very strong reaction by the Select Committee, and why we want to incorporate it in the amendments. At page 62.3 of his evidence, Professor Rushton said:
Thirdly, there is a serious risk that the construction of a barrage would lead to dangerously high water levels in several
locations in Cardiff."
People would not say that for nothing if they have reputations such as the Professor's as world experts on how to drain areas. He is a civil engineer, and he made the point very forcibly that, in his professional view, that was going to be one of the problems. We want to see tonight, rather than by way of a promise from the Government, some sign of what the Government will do when the matter goes to another place, which in turn means that it will come back to this place next year in order to reconcile the two versions. That is why we have mentioned impregnation flooding.
We have also mentioned the question raised by the Wallis and Munro studies which have been independently validated as statistically worth looking at—namely, whether the health and amenity of people in areas with high water tables will be adversely affected. The Minister earlier tried to rubbish that and say that his independent experts—we do not know who they are, where they have studied, what they have done, or how they have studied the proposals—say that it is a load of rubbish and that there is no possibility of any adverse effect on health and amenity from the consequences of a high water table and waterlogging creating cooler conditions, mists and fogs and adverse effects on health.
Perhaps the Minister is right, perhaps he is wrong—we do not know. If he is right, it will not cost a penny to accept the amendments. If there is no effect on health and amenity, one does not have a right to compensation, because one will not be able to get a penny out of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. If the Minister accepts the amendment, we can all go home happy. The right exists, but it will not cost the Minister anything. Why is he unwilling to accept the amendment in the circumstances?

Mr. Gwilym Jones: Amendment No. 15 deals with the barrage design. The corporation has agreed with the NRA that the barrage will be constructed so that it can be drained between tides to a level of 1.25 m below ordnance datum. That provision is included in clause 2 (2). The purpose of that provision is to enable the pollution from any accidental discharge either into the bay or into the rivers upstream of the bay to be cleared rapidly once it has reached the barrage. The requirements have been included in the Bill at the NRA's request. Although the clause permits a change of design with the NRA's agreement, it is extremely unlikely that that body would seek to reduce a level of protection that it has negotiated with the development corporation.
The amendment seeks to permit the change in ability to drain the bay only for the reason of better flood protection. Logic dictates that any change in design that reduces the ability to drain the bay cannot have a beneficial effect on flood protection. Although the impact on flood protection of draining the bay between tides is very marginal, I cannot envisage a situation in which the NRA would agree to such a reduction for the purpose of improving flood protection. Equally, the NRA accepts that greater ability to drain the bay than already included in the Bill is not required. The amendment therefore is unnecessary, since the corporation has already designed the barrage so that it can be drained to the specified level between one high tide and the next.
Amendments No. 100, 30, 101, 34, 102 and 103 would add the alleviation of flooding by the raising of groundwater to the purposes for which the development corporation may operate the barrage under clauses 7 and 8. They would also require the corporation to operate the barrage under directions from the Cardiff city council and the NRA to prevent or alleviate flooding from groundwater.
The amendments are inappropriate for two reasons. First, they confuse surface flooding with raised groundwater levels. Surface flooding is the overflowing of rivers at times of high river flow by overtopping of the river banks.
Impregnation of the ground is the result of raised groundwater levels. The only way in which the powers in clauses 7 and 8, which deal with the operation of the barrage, could be exercised to alleviate groundwater rise is by alteration of the impoundment level below the level of 4 to 4.5 m above ordnance datum specified in clause 9. Neither the National Rivers Authority nor Cardiff city council has requested the powers that the amendments propose for them. Indeed, to give the National Rivers Authority responsibility for groundwater would provide it with responsibility for a subject on which it has no legal powers. The point was made clear in the NRA statement of December 1991.
The city council argued before the Select Committee that its powers to deal with flooding under the Land Drainage Act 1991 did not extend to groundwater. As I already explained this evening, the Government will table an amendment in another place to include the saturation of ground within the definition of flooding under the Land Drainage Act 1991.
We have no doubt about the importance of the matters covered by the amendments, but their purpose has already been achieved by other means. The hon. Member for Cardiff, West withdrew the amendments in Committee, and I hope that he will feel able to do so now.

Amendment negatived.

It being Nine o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order this day, proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on amendments.

Clause 7

POWER TO OPERATE BARRAGE

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 4, line 20, after first 'the', insert 'safest and'.—[Mrs. Clwyd.]

Clause 9

OPERATION: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendment made, No 55, in page 6, line 10, at end insert—

'(c) sailing and motor boat clubs operating in the inland bay and outer harbour.'. —[Mrs. Clwyd.]

Clause 19

THE CARDIFF BAY ADVISORY COMMITTEE

Amendments made: No. 66, in page 11, line 27, at end insert—

'(2A) The following bodies shall be represented on the Committee: Cardiff City Council, South Glamorgan County Council and Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council.'.

No. 64, in page 11, line 28, after 'may', insert

'.after consultation with the Cardiff City Council and the Vale of Glamorgan Borough Council,'.—[Mrs. Clwyd.]

Schedule 4

COMPULSORY LAND ACQUISITION: SUPPLEMENTARY

Amendments made: No. 6, in page 27, line 38, after `deposited' insert

'as soon as is reasonably practicable'.

No. 7, in page 27, line 39, after 'it' insert 'shall be so deposited'.

No. 8, in page 27, line 45, leave out first 'the' and insert 'a copy shall also be given as soon as is reasonably practicable to each person who is an owner or occupier of the land in question.

(3A) Where a copy of the certificate is deposited under sub-paragraph (3) above, it shall be kept with the documents to which it relates.

(3B) The'.

No. 9, in page 28, line 1, leave out sub-paragraph (4). —[Mr. Gwilym Jones.]

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

9 pm

The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hunt): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I hope to respond to any particular points made in the debate if I catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if time permits.
This thoroughly debated and well examined Bill is important not only for Cardiff but for the wider south Wales economy. I cannot emphasise too strongly the tremendous importance that the barrage scheme set out in the Bill has for our capital city of Cardiff.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are in full agreement about the need to regenerate the former docklands area of Cardiff. The Government supported the objectives of the private Bill which preceded the one that we are debating tonight. Several Opposition Members

who were closely involved in that Bill have given valuable support to the Government Bill. That cross-party support, together with the active participation of local government and the public and private sectors, is also a measure of the Bill's importance.
The Government firmly believe that the type of high-quality, high-density development that our capital city needs will happen only with a barrage. It is the barrage which will create the right conditions for attracting the scale and quality of developments to Cardiff. Other options—including the industrially based strategy favoured by other hon. Members—are quite simply not credible.
I know that some hon. Members will say that development is already taking place in Cardiff without the barrage. Of course I very much welcome those developments. We have never claimed that no development would take place without the barrage, although there is widespread support for that view among developers already in the bay. It is certainly true that there is already considerable confidence in the future of Cardiff bay, but that is largely because of confidence that the barrage will be built. Without the barrage, developments could not be of the same value, they would not create so many jobs or houses, and less private sector investment would be attracted.
Already, reference has been made to the latest economic appraisal, copies of which are available in the Vote Office. It confirms the robust case in favour of the barrage project. On previous occasions, I have made it clear that the economic appraisal of January 1990 was sufficiently robust not to require an updated version to be prepared, even in the changed economic circumstances. Nevertheless, we have acceded to requests for a new one to be commissioned.
I am glad to tell the House that the findings of the new appraisal confirm our view that the case for the barrage remains very strong indeed, and continues to be superior in all respects to redevelopment without the barrage. The updated appraisal suggests that the barrage project will bring about 23,200 permanent jobs—that is 10,000 more jobs than an alternative development without a barrage. Construction employment is nearly twice what it would be without a barrage. Nearly 4,400 new houses will be built —1,700 more than without a barrage. The total private sector investment which will be attracted by the barrage is well over £1,000 million.

Mr. Morgan: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Hunt: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman once in my speech, but I will leave that pleasure for a little later.
Finally, we come to the net present value, which even in the current property market remains strongly positive. The net present value of the barrage scenario is £119 million at mid-1992 prices. The equivalent figure for a development without a barrage is minus £153 million. The Government have consistently stated that the barrage project represents by far the best option for redeveloping Cardiff bay in terms of jobs, new houses, private sector investment and value for money. All the economic appraisals have shown that to be the case. This latest appraisal confirms that the Government have been fully justified in their continued support for the barrage scheme.
Hon. Members should not think that the benefits arising from the barrage scheme will be confined to


Cardiff. We believe that the wider south Wales economy will gain from the redevelopment of Cardiff bay. Surveys of major employers in Cardiff carried out by South Glamorgan county council show that nearly 40 per cent. of their employees come from outside the county. Very many of these come from valley communities represented by Labour Members, some of whom have opposed the barrage proposal. I believe that their opposition is mistaken. I accept that they do not oppose the redevelopment of south Cardiff, but they must realise too that, as the opportunities offered by the Cardiff bay barrage scheme come to fruition, the employment prospects for many of their constituents will be greatly enhanced.
We have already achieved a great deal in the valleys. More than 2.5 million sq ft of new industrial floorspace has been created since Lord Walker launched the programme for the valleys in 1988. Private sector investment promises to safeguard or create about 24,000 jobs. More than 300 new factory units have been built under the urban programme up to 1991–92, with a further 40 units planned for the current year. These are just a few examples of what has already been achieved. The regeneration of Cardiff bay will complement and add to the opportunities opening up in the valleys.

Mr. Morgan: I thank the Secretary of State for his exceptional generosity in giving way to me once during his speech, although he may lose his place in the brief that he has in front of him. I understand the difficulty that he has in being precise when he promises new jobs. Last Wednesday, he spoke about 10,000 when he should have said 5,000. Today he has spoken of how the scheme will "bring about" 23,000 jobs. The KPMG Peat, Marwick, McLintock study to which he has referred does not say "bring about" in the sense of creating 23,000 jobs. It says that the project will support 23,000 jobs. I interpret that to mean "accommodate". That is, if all the offices are built and takers are found for all of them, the result would be 23,000 jobs. The report does not say that takers will be found for all the offices. That is why the right hon. Gentleman should rethink the words "bring about".

Mr. Hunt: I have no reason to change any of the words that I used. I did not want to have a sequence of giving way to the hon. Gentleman in my opening speech because he will no doubt have the opportunity to speak later if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I am able to do the same thing at the conclusion of the debate, I shall reply to his points.

Mr. Ted Rowlands: The whole tenor of the Secretary of State's speech implies that this scheme is immune to any form of public expenditure cut in years to come. Is that true? If so, will he give us the assurance that vital capital expenditure schemes for the valleys will also be immune?

Mr. Hunt: There is no such thing as immunity. As the hon. Gentleman will recall from his time as a Minister, discussions take place at this time of the year about resources for next year. Those discussions have not yet been concluded. Provided that the House agrees to the Bill reaching the statute book, the Government are determined to ensure that the barrage becomes a reality.
A further point about the valleys is that there is already a growing awareness of the need to improve the existing public transport links between the valley communities, the city and the bay. Hon. Members may be aware that the local authorities are to examine the possibilities for improving and expanding rail links. We must await the outcome of those studies, but I am sure that hon. Members will welcome them as a further indication that the valleys stand to gain from the regeneration of Cardiff bay.
An aspect of the barrage scheme which has been of particular interest to several hon. Members is the possible effects on wading birds which use the mudflats as feeding grounds. The Government carefully considered the expert studies into the implications for those birds in coming to a view on the original private Bill. Our conclusion was that the arguments weighed heavily in favour of proceeding with the barrage.
Nevertheless, we are committed to providing some form of mitigation for the loss of the feeding grounds, which is why the proposal to build a tidal lagoon was carried over from the private Bill into this Bill. The Select Committee, after hearing detailed evidence, removed those provisions because of doubts about the lagoon's effectiveness as a mitigation measure and because of the effect on the landowners at Wentloog.
The Government remain committed to the provision of some form of mitigation. The Welsh Office, together with Cardiff Bay Development Corporation, the Countryside Council for Wales and the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, considered possible alternatives, and we announced during the Standing Committee that a feasibility study had been commissioned to assess the suitability of sites on the Gwent levels as a bird reserve.
The Countryside Council for Wales and the RSPB are closely involved in the proposal to create an area of wetland, which should be a more effective mitigation measure than the original lagoon proposal. The feasibility study, which is being carried out by consultants with a well established reputation—including Mason Pittendrigh and David Bellamy Associates—is expected to be completed by the end of the year. If the results of the study are favourable and a decision is taken to proceed with the creation of a bird reserve, we shall not be seeking power under this Bill because the necessary authority is available to the development corporation and the land authority under existing legislation.
The House should be told of the Government's intentions. I can also repeat the assurance that we gave to the Standing Committee—that it is the Government's intention to keep the costs of the proposed bird reserve within the £5.7 million originally earmarked for the Wentloog lagoon.
The possible effects on property of changes to groundwater levels is another issue in which hon. Members have taken an interest. As the House is aware, schedule 7 contains a detailed, comprehensive and generous scheme of protection for householders. The Select Committee heard a great deal of technical evidence and made several changes to the schedule. The main changes were the extension of protection to the gardens of residential buildings within the protected property area, the right of householders to nominate a contractor of their own choice to undertake remedial works if the development corporation has not arranged to start work


within six months and the appointment of an independent complaints administrator. All those measures have now been written into the Bill.
The House will recall that, when it last had the opportunity to debate the Bill, I had not taken any decision on public funding for the barrage in the light of the further groundwater studies undertaken by Hydrotechnica. I announced my decision to the House on 20 January. Hon. Members may recall that I also announced that the development corporation had been asked to carry out a feasibility study into the possibility of controlling rises in groundwater levels by means of dewatering wells. The results of that study were published on 20 August. I have arranged for copies of the report to be available in the Vote Office.
That report concluded that dewatering wells could make a significant difference to groundwater rise should the "extreme case" of groundwater rise occur. It recommended that there should be a well-pumping pilot study. The results should be available early in the new year. If that confirms the report's findings, the need to carry out remedial works will be significantly reduced or removed altogether. That would, of course, mean little or no disruption for householders.
Clearly, we cannot decide whether to proceed with dewatering wells until we have the results of the pumping tests. If a decision to proceed is taken, the Government will not seek powers under the Bill to do so, because that can be done under existing legislation.
I want to assure the House, however, that the Government have no intention of removing any of the protection that the Bill now offers to householders. If we do not proceed with dewatering, the protection of schedule 7 will still be available. If we implement the dewatering solution, I see no reason to remove the safety net of protection from the Bill. Even if dewatering does not prove effective in practice, householders will still have the security afforded by the scheme of protection. If damage occurs as a result of groundwater changes attributable to the barrage, the development corporation must remedy it.
We have now dealt with all the main issues raised. I want to give the Government's full support for the biggest ever capital project in Cardiff—a £153 million barrage scheme which will bring more than 23,000 jobs to the capital city of Wales, lead to the construction of 4,400 homes of which a quarter will be for social housing, and trigger more than £1,000 million-worth of private sector investment.
The barrage project represents by far the best option for redeveloping Cardiff bay and the appraisal to which I referred demonstrates that the Government have been fully justified in their continued support for the barrage scheme. I hope that both sides of the House will support the Bill.

Mrs. Clwyd: I stress from the beginning that our criticisms of the Bill have not been about the need for economic regeneration, which is essential for Cardiff docklands. I have lived in Cardiff most of my adult life and I want to see that regeneration. However, we feel that questions remain unanswered and that there is much unfinished business. It is proper that those who care about the environment should voice their concerns about the conservation implications of the barraging of the Taff and

Ely estuary in Cardiff bay, the entire destruction of a site of special scientific interest, and the removal of an integral part of the Severn estuary special protection area.
People are also worried about the cost of the barrage —£153 million, as the Secretary of State confirmed. They are asking whether the extra value that the barrage will add to the whole scheme justifies its cost. Does the economic appraisal make unrealistic, rosy assumptions about the effect, for example, on local land values? If land around the bay is likely to increase in value at the rate assumed by the corporation's study, the corporation may make a fortune by hanging on to that land rather than selling it now. The fall in property prices in Cardiff, although less than in the south-east of England, has significantly reduced the potential value of the barrage —so does the cost outweigh the benefits?
The Secretary of State made great play about the value of the Cardiff bay development for other parts of Wales, particularly the valley areas. Those of us who represent those areas would like to believe what he said about the creation of more jobs for the valleys and the potential of enjoying what he believes will be new-found prosperity in the Cardiff area. People in the valleys have already seen the effects of the Government's policies since 1979, a point that was well made by Kevin Morgan in his study on the Government's regional policy.
It is clear that the Government's philosophy of market forces regenerating British industry by themselves has not been borne out in the valleys of south Wales or in Wales generally. Government policies have meant that regional economic activity has become even more concentrated in the south-east of England. That at any rate was the story of the early 1980s, partly because the Government did not care much for regional planning and partly because their commitment to regional policy was so seriously devalued. Expenditure on regional policy declined by a staggering 62.7 per cent. between 1981 and 1991. In Wales it declined by 58.3 per cent. in that time.
The valleys programme was started in 1988 by Lord Walker, when unemployment among males in the valleys was running at 18.9 per cent. In April this year, it was 18.7 per cent., since when there have been many more job losses. Unfortunately, the Government do not publish figures for the valleys as a matter of course; we are still awaiting a reply to a question to learn what October's figure was. I suspect that it was very much higher.
Since the Secretary of State has been responsible for Welsh policy, unemployment has risen by 46,500 in Wales and the valley areas. The valleys programme, designed to stem the rising tide of employment, has not done so very effectively. It has done nothing to temper the decline in regional policy expenditure, which fell by 50 per cent. in the valleys programme area between 1989 and 1991. The programme has done nothing to prevent the reduction in Government support for training and enterprise councils, as shown by the fact that Mid-Glamorgan TEC had its budget cut by 20 per cent. last year and by a further 15 per cent. this year.
The programme has done nothing to alleviate the chronic financial weakness of local government in the valleys. Most local authorities there are in a weaker position now than when the programme began.
Many of these shortcomings stem from a national economic policy which sets a low premium on regional regeneration and industrial renewal. New priorities are needed at a United Kingdom level. It is equally imperative


that we establish new development priorities in south Wales. We are not convinced by the Secretary of State's promises of jobs, because he has failed to deliver jobs in the valleys areas and because, when speaking of the establishment of Deeside industrial park, he said last week that 10,000 jobs had been created, whereupon it was pointed out that the true figure was nearer 5,000.
I only hope that, if the right hon. Gentleman promises a certain number of jobs as a spin-off from the Cardiff bay development, he will be prepared to stand by his words when the development is complete.
The barrage is the responsibility of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, a quango with no proper accountability to Parliament. It is extraordinary that such a quango should be financed by public funds to the tune of £33 million a year—it is the only large quango in this category. Many quangos are privately audited, but at least the National Audit Office has reserve powers to look at their books. In the case of the Cardiff Bay development corporation, the NAO does not even have that reserve power. The people of Wales are fed up with all these quangos and believe that they should be replaced with a democratically elected Welsh assembly. That would enable us to bring the quangos under proper democratic control. It would subject the functions and actions of the Welsh Office to proper public scrutiny and co-ordinate and promote economic development and regeneration. We say that the Secretary of State's proposals for reforming government in Wales should start from the point of a Welsh assembly, which would facilitate the reorganisation of local government based on unitary authorities by taking overall responsibility for a limited number of strategic and specialised functions.
The people of Wales want and need a decentralised system of government. At the general election 70 per cent. of them voted for parties which supported the creation of a democratically elected Welsh tier of government. It is undeniable that the creation of an assembly would give Wales a strategic direction, which the Secretary of State's current plans are sadly lacking. We shall continue to call for the establishment of a Welsh assembly which will bring the quango-like development corporation—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know whether the hon. Lady is nearing the end of her speech, but she is straying from the terms of the debate on Third Reading.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am drawing my speech to a close, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by saying that it is essential, however we feel about the development of Cardiff bay and our support for regeneration, that the scheme is not administered by a quango which is non-accountable, non-elected and not responsible to the people of Wales.

Mr. Michael: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on Third Reading. I am grateful also that we have reached Third Reading. It is clear from the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) that she recognises the massive need for economic regeneration in the south of Cardiff. It was that recognition of urgent need which led local councillors to support the building of the barrage. They appreciated how the scourge of unemployment has devastated south Cardiff communities.
I welcome the progress which will now take place in Cardiff. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Owen Jones) will recognise, unemployment in his constituency and mine, and in Cardiff, West, is a devastating burden for communities to bear. We need major development to lift the entire city out of that situation, especially after the way in which unemployment has borne down over the past 13 years.
Anyone who has seen Bute East dock—it has water of the same quality as that which will be in the impounded lake—can have no doubt about the sort of environment that will result from the building of the barrage. The results will be positive and they will be bound to attract employers as well as those who wish to live in such an environment.
We have been through a long process before arriving at Third Reading. I have found it depressing, as I said when we experienced difficulties with earlier Bills, that our debates have not been more constructive. Many of them have concentrated on the problems of groundwater, but there has not been a great division between my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) and myself in terms of our starting point on that issue. Our conclusions, however, have been quite different. At the beginning, my hon. Friend said that he could not support the Bill unless he was satisfied about groundwater while I said that I could not oppose the Bill unless I felt that the threat of groundwater was considerable.
It is right that doubts should be aired during debate, and it is important that people can be confident that all the relevant research has been undertaken and that safeguards have been built into the Bill. If the dynamic system of de-watering is introduced, it must not take away one iota from the local community.
We must now look to the future. There have been times when we were wondering whether there was life after the Cardiff Bay Barrage Bill, but that day is about to dawn. I am sure that the Bill will rapidly complete its remaining stages in another place.
The south Cardiff area, which will immediately be affected by redevelopment, comprises both old established communities and one or two new communities. It is important that they should be treated with respect. They have a life and vigour of their own, but many have also experienced difficulty. For many years, Butetown has been an island in a sea of industry, and Splott suffered the devastating impact of the closure of East Moors steel works. Unemployment is high throughout those communities; yet they retain a positive attitude and have much to offer those who live in them. I hope that the development corporation, in partnership with local authorities, will at every stage respect the nature of those communities—and I shall feel obliged to remind them of that if it becomes necessary.
The Secretary of State spoke of the housing to be included in south Cardiff's redevelopment. We have been given an assurance that at least 25 per cent. of new housing in the development corporation area will be social housing for rent at affordable levels. That minimum should be achieved at every stage. A contribution is already being made by housing associations. Rent levels should make it possible for local people to remain in their communities, and for those who once moved to the city outskirts now to return from Llanrumney, Llanedeyrn or St. Mellons and live close to their families. I say that because difficulties have arisen.
To be fair, the development corporation, in allocating land, met that request by local councillors, but problems have arisen in the financial calculations which result in rent decisions. It is most important that the new social housing is a positive element, enabling people to return to their old communities. That is one way of ensuring that the scheme will be viewed positively by local communities.
I am satisfied about the standard of the impounded water, but I hope that consideration will be given at every stage to developing the environment to the benefit of those who live there. It is important to attract tourism and business, but it is vital that local people are considered when streets, traffic schemes, commercial and other arrangements are being finalised.
That is also true of jobs. Without employment and the dignity that comes with having a place in society, the communities in question will continue to be devastated. Everything possible must be done to exploit the barrage to the full in creating the maximum number of high quality jobs.
I ask, above all, for an emphasis on partnership. Local government has contributed active participation and support—critical at times, questioning at times, but positive. Such partnership is most important for the future. I played a small part in the redevelopment of the centre of Cardiff, as indeed did the Minister, the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones). That was a cross-party partnership, and a partnership with the private sector, although I should add that no development corporation was involved. If the development of south Cardiff is to be as successful as that of the city centre, and if it is to achieve the same national recognition, we must recreate a partnership that has been damaged to some extent by the processes that have delayed the Bill's passage.
The discrediting of the private Bill procedure has affected confidence, and we must now rebuild that confidence. Those who, for whatever reason, have opposed or questioned the Bill in the past should be part of the new partnership. There is no doubt that all of us want Cardiff to be developed and to move into the first division. That will now be possible.
Many of us, in our different ways, have tried to improve the Bill during its passage. Some of our debates have been unhelpful; others have been helpful and positive. It is sad that many of the discussions involving supporters of the Bill, and many of the improvements that have been made in the past couple of years, have not received the same publicity as the crude conflict that has developed at times.
I ask for respect to be shown to local authorities and elected representatives, and to the local community. There are signs that that is now happening in the development corporation. I hope that, over the next year or so, my optimism about the corporation's sensitivity will not prove mistaken, for I expect it to be the cornerstone on which success can be built.
We now need to show some confidence. We need to take a positive line in regard to our communities. Unemployment can be tackled; the dereliction of the past can be ended; deprivation need not continue in years to come. I entirely share the aspirations of my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley, who said that the problems of the valleys should also be tackled. Indeed, every part of Wales is now experiencing immense problems.
We must express confidence in Cardiff as a city. It is a great city—a warm and human city. It is Europe's

youngest capital. People who visit it ask, "Why do you keep it secret?" The supporters of the barrage must form a partnership with those who have questioned the development, to safeguard the interests of citizens at every stage and to make the best of every aspect. Cardiff—along with the rest of south Wales and, indeed, the whole country—needs, as a backdrop, a Government economic policy for reconstruction. We need policies to create jobs and to revive the economy. Only with such a positive development in the economy—a proper national strategy for recovery—can Cardiff and, indeed, Wales take their deserved place in the sun. Only in that way can jobs be created—only in that way can people feel confident in their future, and the future of their city.

Mr. Morgan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for allowing me some time between his speech and those of the Front-Bench spokesmen. I want to explain, as clearly as I can, why I—along with the vast bulk of my constituents —have resolutely opposed the construction of the barrage, to the bewilderment of some people.
There are two simple reasons. First, my constituents are concerned about the effect of rising groundwater on their homes and, in some cases, their businesses. Secondly, they do not believe the job forecasts. Their fears have not gone away. On job forecasts, there was another example only last Wednesday. When this Secretary of State for Wales makes a job forecast we should count the silverware. Last week he referred to the Deeside industrial park having 10,000 jobs, but his Department had to correct him and state that the figure was 5,000. My constituents' worries, therefore, do not go away when 23,000 jobs associated with the barrage are forecast.
Even tonight the Minister failed to use the word that his consultants had used. KPMG does not say that 23,000 jobs will be "created" by the construction of the barrage. It uses the word "supported"—a classic weasel word. We still do not know what it means. I take it to mean that that number of jobs would be accommodated, but that does not mean that 23,000 jobs would be created. If KPMG had meant that 23,000 jobs would be created, I am pretty sure that it would have said so.
The Secretary of State used weasel words when he said "bring about". That is not what the consultants say. I wish that the Secretary of State would be as careful as we all should be when job promises connected with such a development are made. If we are not careful, people outside become extremely cynical. We do not want them to be cynical about politicians' promises. The situation is bad enough already. The Secretary of State should provide a genuine opinion as to the possible damage from groundwater and the number of jobs to be created.
My constituents, who are extremely worried about damage from groundwater, are looking carefully at job forecasts. If they do not believe the job forecasts, they will say that the damage to their homes as a result of the rise in the groundwater is not worth the candle. They say that if they could be sure of the jobs the risk might he worth taking, but if job forecasts are a pig in a poke the risk is not worth taking. They believe that the Secretary of State is trying to pull the wool over their eyes. As they say in New


Zealand, even the wool that the Secretary of State is trying to pull over the eyes of the people of Wales is 50 per cent. terylene.
In his Third Reading speech, the Secretary of State said that the barrage would cost £153 million. My constituents believe that the correct figure is £167 million. Where is the missing £9 million? The Secretary of State referred earlier this year to the missing £9 million. He said that he intended to approve public expenditure, arising from the Stoner report, for the additional groundwater protection that was needed to cover the predictions made by his consultant. But he has not got that money from the Treasury. The additional £9 million for groundwater protection is not to be found in the £153 million to which the Secretary of State referred.
The figure ought to be £162 million, at 1992 prices. That is not the outturn cost. If we were realistic, the outturn cost would be about £180 million. For those purposes, one has to accept that £162 million is the proper figure for building the barrage, plus the associated works. That is another reason why my constituents are still worried about the barrage proposal.
The Secretary of State referred to the prospect of dewatering wells, thus solving the problem of rising groundwater. We do not have time to go in detail into exactly how the dewatering wells strategy is to be applied between now and the Committee stage of the Bill when it reaches another place. I understand that field tests will be carried out between now and next February. That is fair enough; after the desk study one should carry out the field study.
The problem, however, is that the dewatering wells are another example of the Government's incompetence when trying to put the fears of my constituents at rest. The dewatering wells study that the Government refer to carrying out between now and February 1993 was ordered by the Select Committee that considered the private Bill and reported to the House in May 1991. It was in the terms of reference given to Hydrotechnica—the development corporation's consultants—to be carried out, on the instruction of the House in May 1991, between August 1991 and July 1992, but it was not done.
The study is late, yet my constituents are being asked to accept that this wonderful dewatering well scheme will solve the problems of rising groundwater and prevent the associated property damage that could result. It should have been done 12 months ago, and if it had been we could have considered it tonight. Some way or another, the ball slipped from the grasp of Cardiff Bay development corporation, in the classic manner of unaccountable, irresponsible quangos of mates of the Secretary of State. The corporation does not care, because it is unaccountable to Parliament. We are always asked to accept what it does, even though it has a record of incompetence, which always makes us want to redouble our efforts to scrutinise what it is doing.
In 1988, I decided to oppose the barrage. I did not like the idea but knew why people such as Lord Crickhowell, whose idea it was, adopted it. They thought, "Given what it will do for London docklands, perhaps it is a good idea for south Wales." Nobody would advance that argument now. The docklands scheme has proved to be misconceived. If Canary Wharf is not doing much for the

economy or image of London, we do not want a budgie wharf in Cardiff to try to do the same job on a smaller scale.
The philosophy of office and property-led development has passed its sell-by date. I did not like it in 1988—I preferred manufacturing-led redevelopment and regeneration—but now 10 times as many people can see the point that I was making, and following the Government's recent economic difficulty it is even more true now than it was four years ago. Many people can now see that the warnings given by opponents of the barrage four years ago have become true for London. Therefore, the idea of copying the way in which regeneration was pursued in London docklands holds no attraction for my constituents.
The Secretary of State referred to the Bill being changed in the other place. He said that I have not been willing to accept the Government's publicity of that change. However, the Government will not only change the Bill but will create a new class of petitioners. Those who petitioned against the Bill in the past have a different reason for doing so now—the unprecedented right that the Government have conferred on Cardiff city council to dig public soakaways on private property. It has never been tried before in a densely populated area of terrace housing. In order to get rid of surface water, the city council will be able to enter people's back gardens and dig under their back walls, goldfish ponds, bike sheds and tool sheds and across their herbaceous borders. That will create an entirely new class of petitioners. When the Bill returns from the other place, will the same petitioners have the right to petition in this House against the additional power to enter private property for public purposes, which Cardiff city council has now agreed with the Secretary of State?
We have also dealt with the fact that we do not like quango-style government. We believe that it results in fixes, and we are not happy about the fixes being made between insiders and the Welsh Office. They are undemocratic and unaccountable, and they lead to too many little private, cosy arrangements being made.
We have also referred to the appalling incident when the Secretary of State decided to choose Councillor Jeff Sainsbury over Councillor Geoff Munton, the nominee of Cardiff city council after Labour had won the election democratically in May 1991. The Government took no notice of that and chose one of the masonic lodge mates of the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Jones) because Councillor Sainsbury wanted to be on the Cardiff Bay development corporation. That is appalling.
If there is one thing that one can say about the barrage, it is that it is a large piece of masonry, but it will certainly not be free. The taxpayers and the city of Cardiff will pay for it for decades to come.

Mr. Murphy: We have limited time. It was appropriate that the previous two speakers were my hon. Friends the Members for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) and for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan), who represent the city of Cardiff together with the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, Central (Mr. Jones), who is present, because the Bill is a matter of great concern to the capital city of Wales. I congratulate my hon. Friends


on the way in which, in their different ways, they hold sincere views and beliefs about the way in which Cardiff should be developed.
Everyone in the House joins in the hope that Cardiff will be redeveloped and rejuvenated by whatever happens in the south of Cardiff. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and I represent valley constituencies. and we are very much aware of the problems of unemployment, recession and housing deprivation which hit not only the valleys, but places such as Splott, Adamstown, Grangetown and other parts of Cardiff which will be affected by the barrage.
I still believe that points have been left unanswered. As a result of the problems of the guillotine, we did not get to the difficulties of the Cardiff bay advisory committee and its composition. We firmly believe that, by law, there should be representatives on it of the new unitary authority in Cardiff. The Secretary of State will announce fairly soon the local government structure in Wales, and the House will have to decide on that. Assuming that there is a unitary authority for Cardiff, it is the obvious body which must have representation on such an advisory committee.
My hon. Friends have referred to the problems of quangos or appointed bodies in Wales. There is great unease in the Principality about those bodies and about their membership. I hope that, in years to come, while the Government are still in power, they will look at that matter differently from the way in which they have looked at it in the past.
There is genuine unease in Cardiff about the problems of groundwater levels, about flooding, about the quality of the water and about the site of special scientific interest. All those are matters of great concern. The matter that still dominates all those is the problem of cost.
We know that the hundreds of millions of pounds that the project will cost were thought of originally when the economy was in a very different position. That economy was based very much on property development, on supermarkets, and on retail parks and the rest. Those days have gone. I hope that, when the autumn statement is delivered, and when the Secretary of State talks about the revenue support grant for local authorities in Wales, he will take a careful look at the priorities in public expenditure, and that he will ensure that the money is shared among all the communities in Wales which vitally need it.
The other place will consider the Bill in the months to come. It has plenty of work to do. However, we assure the Secretary of State that, when the Lords amendments come to the House, we will give them proper scrutiny, which is our job as the Opposition.

Mr. Hunt: I thank the hon. Members for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) and for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for their speeches. It is a good reflection of the spirit of partnership that we have in Wales that people representing valley communities are still prepared to contemplate a development in Cardiff and are prepared to give that development not only their Front-Bench support but their own personal support, in the belief that it will benefit the people of the valleys and south Wales, as well as being enormously important to Cardiff and its people.
Towards the end of what must be more than 60 days of discussion on the Bill in its various forms, I detect that we may be nearer to agreeing than we have been in previous debates. I recognise that the project is enormously important to the people of Cardiff. The hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) referred to the spirit of partnership. I hope that we may rekindle that spirit as we say goodbye to the Bill—albeit temporarily, I am afraid, as the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) explained—as it moves to the other place.
I see that virtually all the political parties are represented in the Chamber at the moment. I strongly believe that the project is of vital importance to Wales, but that it will secure the benefits that we all seek only if it has the wholehearted support of everyone. Perhaps some hon. Members intend to vote against Third Reading. We shall not know until the vote is called.
I appeal to all hon. Members to believe that the best way to get the project up and running on the best possible basis would be for the Bill's Third Reading to receive the unanimous support of the House. That will enable us to build for the future. I echo the words of the hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth who said, "Now let us look to the future."
We have had some good speeches on Third Reading and in previous debates. I must correct the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Davies), who said that the barrage was not mentioned in the manifesto. It was certainly mentioned in the Conservative manifesto, although, strangely, it was omitted from the Labour manifesto.
I have now secured for myself a copy of the Conservative manifesto for Wales, which is entitled "The Best Future for Wales" and which includes a special section entitled "Cardiff Bay". It says:
We shall remain fully committed, as an early priority, to securing Parliamentary approval for the project to build a Barrage in Cardiff in order to transform its seafront. The whole revitalisation of South Cardiff depends upon that Barrage. This project will bring £2,000 million of investment to South Wales, and thousands of new homes and jobs. It will rejuvenate and transform our Capital city.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to implement that manifesto pledge. I want the project to succeed.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, West raised a number of detailed points, and, if I may, I shall write to him on those to which I do not respond tonight. On jobs, I do not believe that there is any difference or distinction between the wording used in the economic appraisal and the words that I used. The important thing is that the barrage will bring much-needed jobs and homes to Cardiff. It will make Cardiff one of the great capital cities of the world. The potential for redeveloping the sea front and river front at Cardiff fills one with excitement for the future.
I do not accept for one moment the criticisms that hon. Members have made of the Cardiff Bay development corporation. Its chairman is one of our outstanding public citizens in Wales, and its new chief executive, Michael Boyce, formerly chief executive of South Glamorgan county council, is one of our most important and prestigious public servants. Under their leadership, I am certain that the barrage will transform Cardiff's future prospects.
I welcome the fact that we have had the support of hon. Members of all parties tonight. As we watch the evolution of the project, I hope that we shall see a capital city rising to the challenge of our times.
The capital city of Cardiff, of which we are justly proud, has a very exciting future. Of course it would have an exciting future without the barrage, and I recognise that those who have opposed the barrage do not do so to denigrate the potential of Cardiff: they oppose it because their view differs from the view of the majority. However, I believe that the majority are right. The barrage will transform the prospects of Cardiff.
I have visited other cities in the world which have discovered that, by lifting the nature of the waterfront, they can stimulate the most remarkable development. We will see that in Cardiff. It is truly one of the greatest projects of our time. I pay tribute to my predecessors, Lord Crickhowell, who thought up and implemented the project at an early stage, and Lord Walker, who brought it to fruition. I strongly urge the House to give the Bill a Third Reading.

It being Ten o'clock, MADAM SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order this day.

Question agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Environmental Action Programme

10 pm

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Maclean): I beg to move,
That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 6132/92, relating to the Fifth Environmental Action Programme; endorses the Government's welcome of the general shape of the Programme; supports the Programme's emphasis on the integration of environmental concerns into other areas of policy, subsidiarity and the need to set priorities and assess costs; and endorses the Government's intention to ensure that these elements and the outcome of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development are adequately reflected in the Resolution of the Programme which the Council is to adopt.
Following the Rio conference, it is timely that we should now be looking at the shape of the European Community's environmental policy until the end of the century. The Commission has previously produced four action programmes on the environment. The latest programme, entitled "Towards Sustainability", sets out the framework for the Community's policies and strategies on the environment until the year 2000.
The strategic approach looks to give a long-term orientation of all the Community's policies. We have made, and will continue to make, every effort to ensure that during our Presidency the programme is given the consideration that it deserves.
Discussion of the programme has made good progress in the environment working group in Brussels. At the Environment Council on 20 October, Ministers noted this progress and looked forward to their meeting in December when they plan to adopt the resolution which will give the Council's blessing to the programme. By that time, we should also have the benefit of the European Parliament's opinion. The programme will begin to be implemented at the start of 1993 when its predecessor expires.
I should point out that the programme is not itself a legislative document. We would not expect the objectives and guidelines that it proposes to be agreed line by line: attempts to seek agreement on each sentence of the programme could take us until the end of the century. Nor do we expect the programme itself to be rewritten. The programme's aim is to set the background against which the Commission will bring forward specific proposals for Community action over the next eight years. As it does so, we shall have to consider the details in specific areas.
As the House will appreciate, the programme covers a wide range of topics. But we can draw out key themes: the programme's objective of the promotion of sustainable growth respecting the environment; the principle of shared responsibility as the bedrock of the programme, meaning action by a wide variety of people and organisations in various sectors and at various levels; and the integration of environmental concerns into all areas of policy. The Government welcome the broad shape of the programme. There are many elements of the programme which fit in with our own priorities.
The first is UNCED or the Rio follow-up. The Earth Summit was an important step in our attempts to tackle the enormous environmental problems which face us all. In Rio, we signed up to many commitments which we are now putting into practice. As we seek to do so, it is right that the Community should play its part. At the Lisbon European Council, the Community agreed to an


eight-point plan of action, sponsored by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, which aims to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development world wide. Much of the necessary action will be for member states individually or acting in concert. But where there is a clear Community role, proposals flowing from the fifth action programme must take account of Rio follow-up as a major priority and contribute to the early fulfilment of the objectives to which we have committed ourselves.
The second is integration. We welcome the programme's emphasis on the need to ensure the integration of environmental concerns into other policy areas. There are no fewer than 11 policy areas outside the environment where work with an environmental aspect is being taken forward during our presidency. But while the programme describes the aim of greater integration, it does not set out the mechanisms as to how this is to be achieved. That is why we took the issue of integration as a major issue for discussion at the informal Environment Council in September.
Ministers recognised the need to devise practical proposals for giving effect to the principle of integration, and identified a number of measures which should be considered by the Commission, the Council and the member states. We hope that from the highest levels the Commission will demonstrate its commitment to ensuring that proper weight is given to the environment in the formulation of all the Community's policies.
Thirdly, one of the themes of the programme is that environmental policies and objectives should be pursued at a variety of levels according to where it is most appropriate to act. I wish to make it clear, however, that—come what may—we shall not lower our environmental objectives. We shall simply be considering the extent to which those objectives are best achieved at Community level or at member state level, or perhaps through co-operation between member states rather than through Community legislation. Of course there are areas where it is right for the Community to act: pollution, as we know, is no respecter of national boundaries.

Mr. Simon Hughes: The Minister will be aware that the question of subsidiarity and environmental policy is controversial. Will he explain a matter to which he has alluded but not expanded on? The motion states that it welcomes
the general shape of the Programme",
but there is a change between the document signed by Lord Strathclyde, which is the explanatory memorandum, and what is in the Government's "This Common Inheritance" second year report. The latter refers to the Lisbon European Council and states that the programme's emphasis on the principle of subsidiarity led to work being commissioned at Lisbon
on the means of giving subsidiarity practical effect.
Will the Minister make it clear that there will be no devolution of matters currently within the environmental competence of the Commission to national states as a result of the change in emphasis at Lisbon?

Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman misunderstands some of the processes that the Commission is currently taking forward on subsidiarity. The environment is not exempt from the studies that the Commission is doing on subsidiarity, nor would one expect it to be. However, as I have made clear, I do not regard the environment as the sole candidate for some aspects of subsidiarity to apply.
The fifth environmental action programme recognises that there are some things that the Community should do and must do because pollution is no respecter of national boundaries. There might be other things which should be left to nation states to do, but there is no inconsistency.
The fourth matter that I want to discuss is where the Commission could learn from British experience, and that is our process of regular review and monitoring of environmental policy and our efforts to record publicly through the annual White Paper the progress that we have made in meeting our targets. The programme suggests a formal review in 1995. We have argued that there should be a more regular process of monitoring and review. The Community should also consider what mechanisms might be introduced to ensure reviews of the functioning of existing legislation to establish where it is not working either because it is impracticable to implement it, according to the text, or because practice has revealed ambiguities.

Mr. Paul Flynn: There is one aspect in which the Community might not benefit from our experience. That is a worrying section in chapter 6.2 of the White Paper, which states:
It is particularly important to the nuclear energy sector that public confidence in it be maintained and even enhanced.
Knowing the experience of the past 20 years' publicity from British Nuclear Fuels plc, in which it constantly understated the risk from nuclear power and the costs of nuclear power, is it not worrying that what might be in this document is a continuation not of objective information but of propaganda?

Mr. Maclean: With respect, the hon. Gentleman should not try to use the fifth environmental action programme —the general thrust of which all parties subscribe to—to try to support any arguments that he may have about aspects of nuclear policy. He will have difficulty pointing to any country which publishes as much information about its nuclear policy or allows its nuclear reactors and industry to be subject to as much scrutiny as this country does. We are proud of the amount of the information that we publish. We accept that, when such information is published, it is often used against us in attempts to discredit us, but we shall continue to publish information in the future with the same alacrity as in the past.

Mr. Peter Hardy: Is the Minister not aware that, before the Government decided to privatise the electricity industry, no one in Britain was officially informed of the enormous losses that had accrued to Britain's nuclear activity for a period of 30 years? Throughout the 1970s and until 1988, Members of Parliament were continually told that nuclear power was cheaper and was the way forward. It was not until the City of London refused to have anything to do with nuclear power that the Government decided to privatise electricity that the nation was formally told of the enormous cost that nuclear power incurred. All electricity consumers in Britain pay 11 per cent. on their electricity bills to bail the nuclear industry out.

Mr. Maclean: Far be it from me to wander down an avenue that is irrelevant to the fifth environmental action programme and become embroiled in other discussions. When I replied to the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) I referred specifically to nuclear safety. I did


not refer to the costs and financing of the industry. However, I entirely subscribe to the hon. Gentleman's view that only privatisation reveals the true cost of an industry. The House has much to be grateful to the Government for in that regard. Privatisation has revealed the cost of the nuclear industry, in the same way as it reveals the true cost of any industry. However, let us not go too far down that route tonight. Others will undoubtedly wish to explore it in the next few months.
My fifth point is that there is a need properly to assess the costs and benefits of environmental policies. The fifth environmental action programme suggests that all Community environmental policies and other policies which have an environmental dimension should be costed comprehensively. That should be vigorously pursued to ensure that our environmental policies are as cost-effective as possible.
As the debate about the Community's future has developed, greater emphasis has been given to openness in the Community's activities. The programme proposes the establishment of a new consultative forum with wide-ranging membership. That could well be a step in the right direction, although it will be essential to decide on its membership and draw up its terms of reference and procedures in order to prevent it from becoming merely a talking shop. It should play a positive and effective role in the formulation of Community environmental policy. The Commission should also develop further its use of "green papers" to canvass opinions on new ideas, and ensure the widest possible consultation when it draws up new proposals.
There are several other areas to which the United Kingdom, as President, will attach importance as we consider the fifth environmental action programme. It is most regrettable that, more than two years after its establishment was agreed, the European Environment Agency has not yet been set up because of disagreements over the siting of other EC institutions. Despite our best efforts, we were unable to force the issue to a conclusion at the Environment Council on 20 October, but we shall continue to use our presidency to attempt to find a solution that will make possible the early establishment of the agency.
We also attach great importance to implementation and enforcement. At our request, the Commission has agreed to report on those issues formally at the next environment council and then on a regular basis in future. The improvement of enforcement will also be covered at the first ever meeting of representatives from the pollution inspectorates of the 12 member states, which Her Majesty's inspectorate of pollution will host next week and which we hope will lead to the establishment of a permanent network of enforcement agencies.
The fifth action programme covers an enormous range of ideas and objectives. The resolution to be adopted by the Environment Council must give guidance to the Commission about our priorities and the way in which we wish to see work flow from the programme pursued. That will be the Government's aim as we take forward discussions on the programme and resolution in Brussels. I commend the Government's approach to the House.

Mr. Chris Smith: The Opposition give a broad welcome to the fifth action programme. We have our quarrels with the Government's motion which, as usual, tends to self-congratulation. The programme sets out aims and principles rather than specifics. As the rapporteur for the European Parliament has said of it:
It is essentially a declaration of intent rather than a precise proposal for practical alternatives.
That is fair enough, because it is a programme that, over the coming years, can be used to shape national environmental programmes.
One of the key themes of the programme, which the Minister rightly highlighted, is shared responsibility. That means a number of different things because responsibility can be shared between different levels of public authority within a member state, between public organisations, the private sectors and non-governmental organisations and between different Departments of State. The Labour party warmly supports all such sharings. It would be good if the Government practised some of this sharing of responsibility within the United Kingdom.
Let us take one simple example—the sharing of responsibility between central Government and local authorities. The Government have told local authorities that, within the next few years, they must ensure that they recycle 25 per cent. of their wastes. We fully support that admirable and laudable objective. However, the Government have given local authorities no extra resources or assistance to carry out that objective. Local authorities are telling the Government that it will be difficult for them to meet those targets unless the Government take some share of that responsibility. Therefore, while we welcome the doctrine of shared responsibility, we question whether the Government will put it into practice here in Britain.
A number of specific points arise out of the fifth action programme. The first is the importance of getting right the mechanisms by which we can achieve the targets set out in the programme. Back in July, the Government commissioned a rather interesting report from the Institute for European Environmental Policy. That report made a number of suggestions, one of which was that each directorate within the European Commission should have an environmental unit examining how, within that directorate—even if it were not entirely concerned with the environment—green policies and the objectives of the action programme were being carried out.
The institute also proposed that each directorate should be required to produce an annual report of its activities in relation to the environment. As the Minister chairs the European Council of Ministers on the Environment, I can ask him what progress, if any, has been made in achieving those wise proposals on the environmental purposes of each European directorate. It would be good to hear an answer on that.
My second query involves ozone depletion and climate change. On page 42 of the programme, there is a commitment to limit the use of hydrochlorofluorocarbons to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the 1990 level of chlorofluorocarbons by the year 2000. This is not as arcane as it may seem, because, while CFCs are a major contributing factor to the damage to the ozone layer,


HCFCs are less immediately damaging, although they are not entirely innocent. The widespread use of HCFCs is likely to cause damage.
Why, if there was such a tough target in the fifth action programme, was there a recent decision at a preparatory meeting of Ministers for the Montreal protocol, to allow the use of HCFCs to continue for at least a 27-year period? That does not strike me as an attempt to meet the target date of 2000 for such a tough restriction as is rightly included in the fifth action programme for the use of HCFCs.
It would also be good to be told by the Government whether, as widely expected, HCFCs will be the principal component of the air conditioning systems installed in the Channel tunnel and, if so, what quantity of HCFCs will be used and what will be the anticipated damage to the ozone layer from that use? The Minister could usefully explain how that squares with the provisions of the fifth action programme.
There is a brief mention in the fifth action programme of the need for energy efficiency. The Government must realise that better performance on energy efficiency, energy conservation and energy insulation work is the key to reducing carbon dioxide emissions in this country. Why, then, is there no sign of any national programme from the British Government to improve energy efficiency?
Indeed, why have the Government themselves not performed particularly well in relation to their own expenditure? The Association for the Conservation of Energy has kindly provided me with some interesting figures about the performance of Government Departments in relation to energy efficiency. The most interesting relate to the Department of Trade and Industry. The President of the Board of Trade has in the last couple of weeks referred to the importance of environmental considerations in relation to energy policy. He might start by looking at his own Department. Expenditure in the Department of Trade and Industry between 1990–91 and 1991–92 on energy efficiency work went down by 74 per cent.
Other Departments appear to have performed even worse. For example, Department of Health expenditure on energy efficiency went down by 96 per cent. Although the Department of Education and Science spent a little more on energy efficiency, its energy expenditure—even though it was moving to a new building which, in theory, should have been more energy efficient than the old building it was leaving—went up by 48 per cent. If the Government are serious about the environmental impact of energy policy, they might start by looking at the performance of their own Departments.
The fifth action programme refers to the habitats directive. The Government must recognise the crucial importance of that directive in achieving nature conservation goals. During the period of the fourth action programme, over 1,200 sites of special scientific interest were destroyed or damaged, a record of which no Government should be proud. It is clear that the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 is urgently in need of strengthening. The MacSharry reforms to the common agricultural policy still do not provide enough for the enfolding of conservation values into our agriculture policy. Will the Government make a commitment to introduce legislation to implement the habitats directive soon, to strengthen the existing protection which is inadequate for wildlife habitats in this country?
Fifthly, the fifth environmental action programme says that we must begin to use new economic indicators, set alongside indicators such as gross domestic product. On page 67 and in the table on page 72 the programme is specific on that point. It sets target dates and says that we must achieve some progress on that by 1995 and on other elements by 1999. How much progress have the Government made in redefining how we measure economic progress? Have they done anything to set new indicators beside our current projections of GDP, which take no account of resource depletion, the creation of waste, pollution, or some of the long-term environmental consequences of economic activity? If they have done nothing to move the debate along on that issue, why not? It is in the fifth environmental action programme. They say that they welcome the programme, so it would be useful to know what they are doing to implement it.
Sixthly, the Government have already mentioned, in the course of the debate and in the motion before the House, the principle of subsidiarity. The Minister was remarkably frank on the subject: he told us that the environment would not be exempt from the search for items for subsidiarity. He said that the environment knows no national boundaries and he knows that the sea that washes the shores of Britain also washes the shores of the rest of Europe, and that sulphur dioxide produced in Britain falls in Norway, Sweden and Germany. He must know that that immediately imposes international environmental obligations on any country in relation to what it does to the atmosphere or the waters around its coast. He must also know that there is an urgent need to ensure that we keep Europe-wide standards of environmental protection in Britain, and that we keep those standards high and consistent.
This week, the bulldozers are likely to move in to start digging up Twyford down. It is only because the European Commissioner has stood up to protect Oxleas wood that the same fate has not befallen that precious ecological site yet. The Government must not yield up the environment and proper environmental protection as a hostage to appease those who believe that bringing power back to Whitehall somehow solves a political problem about Europe in the Tory party. The environment must not be used as a tool in an internal argument within the Conservative party. Environmental protection on a Europe wide basis is too important and precious for that to happen.
Finally, one of the important issues that comes out of the action programme is what is called "the use of economic instruments". The Secretary of State is becoming rather fond of the use of economic instruments. He gave a lecture at the Royal Society of Arts about three months ago on the subject and included copious references to economic instruments in his speech to the Conservative party conference. In the second anniversary report on our common inheritance, he talks about economic instruments. I am not sure whether he has in mind the same economic instruments as the fifth environmental action programme mentions, because those are rather interesting.
There are four kinds of economic instruments in this programme. There are charges and levies; there are fiscal incentives. There is state aid. That would be a novel idea for this Government. There is also environmental auditing. Those are all extremely useful tools for protecting the environment. They all have their place. Indeed, for several years, the Opposition have been


arguing for green taxation proposals—ignored by the Chancellor in every Budget over the past three or four years. We have argued for a levy on landfill sites. We have argued for a switch in the use of the nuclear levy to energy conservation, to cleaning up emissions from fossil fuel power stations and to research into renewable sources of energy. That would represent a better use of the levy than the one to which it is currently put. We have also argued for a proper system of environmental auditing. These are all worthy ideas about which the Government ought to be doing far more.
What I suspect the Secretary of State means by economic instruments is simply the use of market forces. He will ensure that market forces, not the proper role of regulation, will be the tool on which he will rely to protect our environment. That is just not good enough. Regulation must remain the linchpin of environmental protection policy.
By all means let us look at taxation incentives, auditing, levies and the various proposals in the fifth directive action programme, but let us not at the same time downgrade the place of regulation as the core of a proper environmental protection policy.
The last but one Secretary of State for the Environment understood all this extremely well. When he published "This Common Inheritance" the first time around, he included an extremely apposite quotation from John Stuart Mill. It is printed at the very beginning of that White Paper:
What rights, and under what conditions, a person shall be allowed to exercise over any portion of this common inheritance"—
the earth—
cannot be left undecided. No function of Government is less optional than the regulation of these things.
The Opposition strongly endorse that clear principle. Regulation must be used to ensure that the earth we live in is not damaged. We recognise that market forces can help, but that they will never resolve the issues that face our shared environment. I only hope that the Government and the present Secretary of State will learn that lesson too.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith), rather unusually, quoted John Stuart Mill. I should like to quote one of the lovely songs that my daughter plays to me frequently in the car. It is by Bob Marley, and it goes:
Don't you worry about anything
Because everything's going to be all right.
This document is a load of rubbish. It places no obligations on anyone. It may cheer up the Community and all the people who go to those expensive conferences, but it will achieve nothing. It may even cheer up the Opposition spokesman, who revels in this sort of nonsense. But I hope that the Minister will have the guts to admit that this is costly nonsense which commits no one to anything, which will not stand up in a court of law and which in any event is a load of old rubbish.
I draw the Minister's attention to the seventh paragraph, which sets out these wonderful environmental designs for the future. We are told that the
farmer is the guardian of the soil and of the countryside",
and I am sure that that is true. It is said:
Improvements in farming efficiency, increased mechanisation levels, improved transport and marketing arrangements and increased international trade in … feedstuffs have all contributed to the fulfilment of the original Treaty objectives of assuring the availability of food supplies at reasonable prices, the stabilization of markets and a fair standard of living for the agricultural community.
Does the Minister believe that we have achieved, and will continue to achieve, the stabilisation of markets? My understanding is that markets have never been less stable and never more distorted. Have we ensured the availability of foodstuffs at reasonable prices? In fact, we have grotesquely high prices. In addition, £500 million is spent each week on dumping and destroying food. Colleagues who talk of the need for expenditure in various areas should realise that, every week, £500 million is wasted. How can the Government put their name, and that of their country, on this load of absolute rubbish, which is distorting the truth and common sense in every possible way?
Secondly, the document sets out some of the needs that have to be examined. It refers to the desperate need for additional skills and training in a number of areas, one of which is integrated pest control. I ask the Government sharply and clearly to explain why there is such a desperate need, and why we all have to jump to attention to attend to it. The Minister will know that I am referring to section 7.6, which is headed "Professional Education and Training".
Thirdly, the Government will be well aware that there is not a cohesion fund, and probably never will be. Even if such a fund is established in law, there will be no money to operate it. On page 71, however, the principles of such fund are set out. It is hoped that they will be established under a Maastricht agreement. There are two particular principles which seem to be illogical, unnecessary and contrary to all the principles that involve common sense in economics.
I ask my hon. Friend the Minister briefly and in conclusion whether it would make any difference to anyone, whether in the House, outside it or in any other European country, if the documents that are before us had never been produced, if there had never been any silly seminars and discussions to frame them and if we have not spent a fortune producing a load of rubbish that will mean no legal commitment by anyone. My hon. Friend the Minister is well aware that, if it had some form of moral commitment, it could be blatantly disregarded—openly, clearly and daily—by members of the European Community.
If the Minister cannot answer my questions about pest control and agriculture, will he tell me what difference it would make to anyone if this costly and expensive documentation had never been produced and all the costly meetings and journeys of civil servants to Brussels and other places in Europe to discuss the documents had never taken place? Does he agree that it is a costly load of rubbish and that we are wasting our time discussing it?

Mr. Simon Hughes: I do not know whether the Minister will answer the questions of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir Teddy Taylor), but I shall. In a short speech, he repeated himself three times. It is clear that he ignores the recent history of Europe in relation to environmental policy. If he is to be so blind to the facts, it is no wonder that he and those who think like him—those who oppose closer European integration—have to make up for their lack of sustainable argument with a lot of noise with no substance.
I respect the views of the hon. Member for Southend, East on animal welfare, but he should understand that some of the progress that we have made in that significant area as in others has been in no small measure due to pressure on us from elsewhere in Europe and not from within the United Kingdom.

Sir Teddy Taylor: The hon. Gentleman cannot say that.

Mr. Hughes: I have not given way yet. I shall continue with what I have to say.

Sir Teddy Taylor: It is shocking.

Mr. Hughes: It is certainly not shocking. I shall respond to the hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. However strongly the hon. Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) feels, he must contain himself.

Mr. Hughes: I will answer the hon. Gentleman.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Animal welfare.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I did not expect to have to call the hon. Member for Southend, East to order again. He has been in this House long enough to know that sedentary interventions of that kind are wholly unacceptable.

Mr. Hughes: The hon. Gentleman accused the Government, in endorsing and commending the fifth action programme, of supporting a load of rubbish. I will put him right and explain why the programme is not just a load of rubbish but an important measure.
The European Community— thank goodness, some of us say—has always had some level of commitment to environmental issues. It sets out its environmental programmes in documents that are not legally binding but which provide the policy platform from which legislation is drawn. From the time of the Single European Act, to which the House agreed when Baroness Thatcher was Prime Minister, environmental objectives have also been incorporated in Community treaties. The Maastricht treaty proposes their further extension.
There have so far been over 300 pieces of European legislation on environmental protection, and more than 50 more have been published as draft proposals. Some of them have been enormously welcomed in this country— such as the legislation to improve drinking and bathing water quality, to hasten the reduction of lead in petrol, and to provide environmental impact assessments. Those initiatives all originated in the Community, not the United Kingdom.
We have a corpus of European environmental legislation because the Commission had the foresight to think through issues coming down the track and to

compile the four programmes we have already endorsed and the fifth one which we are debating tonight. It is impossible intelligently to legislate without a strategy. Indeed, Opposition Members often criticise the Government for legislating in substantial policy areas such as energy in the absence of a strategy. The Government's supporters know the kind of trouble that causes. Only someone who imagines that legislation can successfully be passed in the absence of a policy context would argue that a programme that sets out the general policy is a load of rubbish.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does not the hon. Gentleman, as someone who fights for animal welfare, agree that many of the improvements that he and I would like are prevented by European directives from being legislated for in this Chamber? What can the House do about the vile treatment to which transported animals are subjected, or about battery hens? What can be done about any aspect of animal welfare, which matters hugely?

Mr. Hughes: I told the House that, on animal welfare, the hon. Gentleman and I are in accord, and I do not doubt his sincerity. It is sometimes entirely possible, and compatible with European law, for individual member states to impose regulations tougher than the European regulations. The problem arises in the context of the law requiring free movement, and so on. The hon. Gentleman is right: in these issues we must take the lead. Sometimes Britain must seek to ensure that the standards of other member states are as high as ours. Farm animals welfare is one example. But there is nothing to stop this country surpassing the European standard in many areas, although this is an issue best debated separately elsewhere.
Tonight's motion may be fine as far as it goes, but it begs a few questions. The Government welcome the general shape of the programme, but we are told that they will make drafting amendments, although we do not know what form they will take. As I said when I intervened on the Minister, severe risks are involved in the Government's plans for delivering subsidiarity in environmental policy —a point that was also raised earlier by the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith).
I welcome the work done by the Commission on documents such as this during the leadership of Carlo Ripa di Meana. We in Britain should pay tribute to what was achieved by Commissioner di Meana before his return to Italy, and should also welcome his successor, Karel van Miert.
This document gives us an opportunity to see a way ahead. Of course it is not perfect; unfortunately, it is more imperfect than it might have been, because our Government have watered it down. One of the problems affecting both this document and the Maastricht treaty is the fact that, in regard to environmental issues, the British Government have sought to make them weaker rather than stronger.
The Maastricht treaty, for instance, would have contained an energy chapter committing the European Community to tougher energy conservation policy, along with a commitment to the use of less polluting forms of energy. Why are those provisions not included? Because the British Government objected, and accordingly they went out of the window. There would also have been far fewer exceptions to the majority voting proposals in the


treaty. Why are there so many? Why will so many issues still have to be decided unanimously in Europe? Because the British Government, among others, objected.
It is no good for the Minister to pretend to the House that the Government are greatly committed to the highest standards of enforcement of environmental policy. That is not the truth, and there is clear evidence of what happened during the negotiations leading to the Maastricht treaty and earlier this year.
I welcome the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury to his new Front-Bench responsibilities—along with his hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short), who will no doubt perform in a strongly supportive role—and he was right to raise subsidiarity as a key issue. The Government may well persuade the Commission—it looks as though they have tried—to suggest that one of the matters "downgraded" to national decision should be a series of environmental subjects that are far better regulated at a Europewide level. The bathing water directive is an example.
If the Government wish to sustain support for Maastricht from other parties—particularly over the next few weeks—they had better stop thinking of selling out on such matters as environmental policy by handing more of them down for decision-making at national level. If that is the price that they want the European Community to pay for their ability to hold their party together, they risk losing the support of the Opposition parties. I hope that they will heed that warning. We will not sell out on the environment to get the Government out of a hole; if they take such action, it will be just another U-turn to add to their list.
I share the Government's frustration over the fact that a European environmental agency has not been set up. I heard what the Minister said, and I hope that during the remaining few weeks of the British presidency the Government will exert even more pressure to sort out this nonsense once and for all. I know that it is not our fault, and I am aware that we are pushing; but we are in the President's chair, and we must put on the pressure even more.
I am also aware that the Government are keen to ensure that there is a decent audit and inspection procedure. Earlier this year, in its report "Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Legislation", the Select Committee on the European Communities in the other place made it clear that we must have tough auditing and a tough inspectorate. As the hon. Member for Southend, East would surely agree, it is no use having laws if they are enforced partially rather than properly. However—as the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury and others will also agree—it is also no use agreeing to laws, and criticising others for not applying them, when our own application of those laws is selective.
The habitats directive is a clear example. The hon. Gentleman chose one figure; I understand that, in a single calendar year—last year—we lost 500 sites of special scientific interest in this country. It is no good delaying legislation—[Interruption.] It is no use the Minister muttering, "Rubbish." I should be grateful if he would tell us how many sites have been lost. Those appear to be the statistics. [Interruption.] The sites were damaged, certainly, if not lost. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] The reality is

that there is a directive but that the Government have not introduced legislation. They are doing nothing to do so. They are standing idly by.
I also predict that the money required for the environmentally sensitive areas policy that was announced by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food will not be made available. The Government's supposedly great commitment to environmentally sensitive farming will therefore be thrown out of the window as well.
Thank God for the European Community's environ-mental policy. Thank God the European Community has taken so many initiatives. May it keep up the pressure. May nothing that this Government do water it down any more.

Mr. Peter Hardy: When we listen to Conservative Members, particularly to those who sit on the Treasury Bench, we are accustomed to trite comment. They put their hands on their hearts and pledge the Government's support for a decent environment, but when we look in detail at their achievements we find that in almost every sphere there are grounds for serious concern. I noticed that, when the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to the number of sites of special scientific interest, the Minister did not agree with his figure, and that, when it was pointed out that the sites had been damaged rather than destroyed, Conservative Members regarded it as a matter of hilarity. The fact that hundreds of important sites, recognised as vital for nature conservation, are damaged year after year while the Government deny that it is a matter of concern shows that they are unfit to be responsible for our natural heritage.
When the Government rightly banned straw burning, some of the farmers in my constituency said to me, "You know what the response of farmers will be? Because they are banned from straw burning, they will buy and use far more pesticides." When I wrote to Lady Trumpington, she said in her reply that the Government knew that but hoped that farmers would not use more pesticides. During agriculture questions a few weeks later, I asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what steps he intended to take to ensure that, following the ban on straw burning, farmers were discouraged or prevented from liberally applying pesticides and other poisons to Britain's arable land. To the great delight of all his hon. Friends, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food said that I did not know what I was talking about because all hon. Members knew that pesticides were not poisonous. I accept that they may not be as poisonous as the present Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, but the fact remains that pesticides are poisonous and that the Government could not care less.
The Minister said today that pollution does not respect national boundaries and that we must not lower our environmental objectives. Earlier this week, I telephoned the Department of the Environment to remind it that next month 2,700 drums of toxic waste will still be in my constituency. When it first arrived—since its arrival I have complained about it, in one way or another, 174 times in the House—I was told that it would be gone by Christmas. That was December 1989. I do not know whether it will still be there in December 1992.
I telephoned the Department and said that, although I knew that it wanted to forget about that toxic waste, there is shortly to be a court action in the United States which I hope will resolve the matter. There is just one problem: the Americans will not allow that toxic waste back into the United States. Although it was legal to export it, it is not legal to bring it back into the United States. We want to know what is to happen to that toxic waste.
The site for that toxic waste is probably the largest single area of dereliction in western Europe. The Minister used to be chairman of the Dearne valley venture, but the chairmanship has now passed to Lord Henley. My only complaint about that is that the noble Lord is Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. I find that rather odd. I wrote to the Minister a number of times. I asked to see him in July, and I wrote to him in August. I have now been told to see the noble Lord who is Under-Secretary of State for Social Security. How seriously can we take the Government's concern about the environment when they pass off responsibility in that way?
I know that the hon. Member for Southend, East. (Mr. Taylor) does not like the jargon and bureaucracy which sometimes emanate from Brussels, but, like the hon. Member for Southwark and Bermondsey, I thank God that Brussels is worried about environmental impact assessments. I have been heavily involved in nature conservation and the cause of the environment in Europe for a long time. I vividly recall that a big conference was held when eastern European countries began to embrace democracy. The British Conservative delegation attended to advice those countries on how to approach the economy and the environment. The eastern European countries are beset by foul pollution, but the delegation advised them: "Sweep away all your regulations; dismantle all your laws; free the entrepreneur to stimulate and ensure economic recovery." That was the advice of people who are not fit to be responsible for our natural heritage and for our environment.
The Government have blocked Bills to protect hedgerows, have reduced the capacity of local authorities to protect their own environments and have allowed Britain to be poisoned by the entrepreneur, who has inflicted enormous damage on my area. A few weeks ago, the Department of the Environment produced a lovely little brochure and I wrote to the Minister to congratulate him on the photographs on pages 1 and 2 depicting the Manvers site in my constituency. The local community is still waiting for responses to expressions of enormous anxiety. Unless the Government change their regulations and course, land that they proudly boast to have reclaimed will remain in a sterilised condition as long ahead as one can see. We are entitled to expect the Government to be a little more sincere, a little more energetic and a little more convincing than they have been in recent weeks.

Mr. Cynog Dafis: Chapter 13 of the document deals with the United Nations conference on the environment and development. The document was written before the conference.
I remind the House of the twin themes of UNCED—environmental sustainability and social and global equity. UNCED was intended to be a turning point, and I shall quote from the document to show what a turning point it was supposed to be. Page 92 says that UNCED

should therefore mark the transition from a model of development almost exclusively aimed at promoting economic growth towards a model wherein environmental protection and rational management of natural resources will be taken on board as integral components of development patterns.
That was the environmental sustainability theme at UNCED.
On page 92, there is a reference to the Dublin declaration of June 1990, which emphasises the need to meet
the specific needs … of its partners"—
the European Community's partners—
in the developing world and in Central and Eastern Europe.
Chapter 12 on bilateral co-operation and the section on developing countries is quite specific. It states:
The Community and Member States will continue to intensify their efforts … it is necessary to increase official development aid and to mobilise new financial resources … to finance sustainable and environmentally sound development programmes and projects.
We all recall that the commitment of new moneys by industrial countries to fund agenda 21 was grossly inadequate—about £2.5 billion per annum compared to the United Nations estimated requirement of £70 billion pounds. That is a remarkable disparity. That is the equity theme of UNCED.
Reports since suggest that even that pitiful requirement may not be honoured. First, the earth increment, part of the replenishment of the World bank International Development Association, is said to be in danger of collapse with Britain noticeably cool. It is said that we shall be lucky to maintain existing levels of that International Development Association budget, apart from any increase.
Secondly, Britain offered at Rio to triple its contribution to the global environmental facility to £100 million. That is now said to be threatened by budget cuts. Thirdly, we are told that Treasury Ministers are threatening to cut £250 million from bilateral overseas aid.
To renege on even the undertakings made at what was to be the most important meeting in the history of the world would make a mockery of the Rio agenda, a mockery of agenda 21 and a mockery of the new sustainable development commission which is to be set up in coming months. One can only imagine what the response among poorer countries could be and how disastrously damaging that response would be to the whole concept of environmental sustainability.
If we accept the rhetoric of UNCED—that the future of our planet is at stake—the consequences do not bear thinking about. Already the catastrophic poverty in some of the poorer countries does not bear thinking about.
I ask the Government to come clean and to make a clear statement about where they are at. The Government —this is true of all of us—must decide whether we wish to take UNCED and agenda 21 seriously or not.

Mr. Maclean: With permission, I will reply to a few of the points raised in an interesting debate. I should explain to the House, as I tried to explain in my opening speech, the nature of the fifth environmental action programme, especially for the benefit of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor). He asked one fundamental question. If we did not have these documents, what difference would it make?
The difference would be that the Commission, which has the sole right to propose initiatives and legislation in the Community, could produce any directives and regulations that it saw fit without any guidance from the member states. The fifth environmental action programme gives some guidance. This may not be a good analogy, but it is like a giant a la carte menu. In some ways, it is like agenda 21. One does not expect to have to work one's way through every item on the list, but at least if everything is displayed in the window, one knows the sort of restaurant one is about to go into and the sort of meals that one might get there. My hon. Friend may have views as to the cooking ability of those concerned, but that is a different matter.
I warmly welcome the hon. Member for Islington, South and Finsbury (Mr. Smith). It is a great pleasure to see him on the Opposition Front Bench. It is perhaps unfair to be slightly carping towards him on his first appearance as an environment spokesman, but he should consider what we have been doing in the past few months. Where has he been during that time? He slammed into us on recycling, failing to realise that we gave £12 million in supplementary credit approvals last year, and £15 million this year to 126 local authorities.
The hon. Gentleman made a fuss about eco-auditing —environmental auditing. That is one of the initiatives that we are taking forward and one of the matters discussed at the Luxembourg Council last week and at the informal Ministers' Council. We consider it terribly important. We have even included it in the published programme. It is one of the things that we hope to achieve during our presidency.
The hon. Gentleman may be fortunate enough not to see television very often and has perhaps not seen the advertising campaign, "Helping the Earth Begins at Home", which tells householders and individuals what they can do about global warming. That is one of our energy efficiency measures. It is easy to pick on certain Government Departments for not being energy-efficient in the first year of a five-year programme. I emphasise, however, that those Departments have signed up to energy efficiency improvements over five years, and I do not think that it is fair to judge them in the first year of their efforts to meet a five-year target.
The hon. Gentleman went on about HCFCs. Of course we recognise that HCFCs have some ozone-depleting potential—about one twentieth that of CFCs, which are the real villain of the piece. If we are to make any real progress in combating ozone depletion, we must get the use of CFCs reduced and if we are to do that, we must allow HCFCs to be used in the interim, until all the other all-singing, all-dancing alternatives are available. Every other country in the world takes the view that HCFCs have a role to play in the interim period.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned environmental units in the Commission. We are keen on that idea; we repeatedly raised the subject at the Council meeting last week. I particularly made the point, drawing attention to that excellent report. This is a matter for the Commission, however. We do not have the power unilaterally to tell the Commission what to do or to impose a regime in Europe whereby all the directorates-general have their own

environmental units and reorganise and reform themselves. I repeat that we pursued the matter last week, and we shall raise it again and again because we see merit in it. Environmental policy has now been integrated into all other aspects of our policy in this country—we have interdepartmental discussions on it—and Europe could easily follow that example.
The hon. Members for Islington, South and Finsbury and for Southwark and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes) referred to habitats, and sought to extract a promise from me that we will introduce legislation to implement the habitats directive. That is not news, however—we have been working on it, and we shall introduce the legislation at the earliest possible opportunity. We have some years to do that, so time is on our side.
This country has 5,600 sites of special scientific interest, and 8 per cent. of the land mass of Great Britain is contained within SSSIs. It is easy to pick on a site where damage has been caused, and I should perhaps have listened to hon. Members with more respect if they had pointed out that SSSIs in other countries have also sustained damage. I was fascinated by an article in The Daily Telegraph two weeks ago, showing the substantial damage that had happened not to an SSSI but to a special protection area. Although we are the third or fourth country in Europe in announcing SPAs, we have been criticised. According to the article, in one country thousands of acres have been devastated, but we heard not a word from the Opposition about that.
In our White Paper, we publicly acknowledge those matters on which we have done well, and those on which we have not done so well and on which we must make progress. When considering the fifth environmental action programme, it does us no service to denigrate this country for some of the progress that we are making in respect of the environment and to paint a picture showing that our environment is the only environment which is going down hill or that we are destroying the environment. The reverse is the case. We are protecting our environment exceptionally well, although of course there is more that we can do. And we shall do more: we shall take further measures to protect our environment whether or not the Commission proposes those measures. We recognise that protecting all aspects of our environment is good for the people of this country and for our industry.

Mr. Chris Smith: It does the House no service if the Government dismiss, as the Minister has just dismissed, the real problem of the 1,200 sites of special scientific interest which were damaged during the course of the fourth action programme. The Minister must not simply dismiss that as not particularly relevant. It is very relevant. The Minister said that we have plenty of time to institute the habitats directive and to implement it in legislation, but we do not have that time, because, while the Government are waiting, more SSSIs will be destroyed or damaged.

Mr. Maclean: I reject the hon. Gentleman's pessimism. We are not complacent about some of the SSSIs that have suffered damage, but we must also recognise the extensive network of protection in this country exercised through English Nature, the large number of SSSIs, the substantial measure of protection, and the fact that we have the most designated Ramsar sites in Europe. We must also recognise the large number of special protection areas that we have designated. Of course, English Nature now wants


to concentrate on ensuring that its protection of SSSIs is as effective as it can be. When I said that we have plenty of time to implement the habitats directive, I meant that we have sufficient time within the time scale in the directive to do that. We intend that it shall be implemented.

Mr. Hardy: The Minister suggested that we were not critical of our neighbours. I have been chairman of the natural environment sub-committee of the Council of Europe for a long time and I have berated our neighbours on many occasions. After the war, and for a considerable part of the post-war period, Britain was far and away the lead country in conservation and environmental concerns. That is no longer the position and the Minister gave examples which proved that a few moments ago. The Minister should not suggest that we are critical only of Britain.
The Minister referred to Ramsar sites. On occasions, private Bills have been introduced in the House whereby important areas of the environment were due for serious damage or destruction and Conservative Members trooped through the Lobbies to support that destruction. They did so in respect of the very important Ramsar site affected by the Felixtowe Dock and Railway Bill which—

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not make another speech. Interventions should be brief.

Mr. Maclean: I was trying to suggest that it would not be the British way simply to criticise our neighbours or to exempt ourselves. However, it is not good for us to give the impression that we criticise and denigrate only ourselves as though we were still the dirty man of Europe. I reject the claim that we are no longer in the lead in respect of nature conservation. We are the most respected country in the world in that regard. No other country has such a scientific lead in nature conservation as we have. In negotiations on the convention on trade in endangered species or other issues, it is the British scientists who are listened to because we have the expertise.
The hon. Member for Wentworth (Mr. Hardy) referred to pesticides and gave the impression that our use of pesticides was increasing and that farmers were ignoring the strictures, but that is not so. Pesticide use in this country has decreased by 20 per cent. in the past 10 years. The hon. Gentleman should not give the impression that it is doing the opposite.
On toxic waste, I do not want to comment on the specific case as it is sub judice—subject to legal procedures—at the moment. However, I make the general point that last week at the Council of Ministers meeting in Luxembourg we obtained agreement. It was thanks to the brilliant chairing of my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State that we got agreement on the waste shipments directive. The Community is now in a position to sign the Basle convention, and we shall be able for the first time to bring in measures through the national self-sufficiency plans to put proper controls on the transfer

or shipment of waste between developed countries. I look forward to the day when those shipments will be drastically reduced if not stopped.
The final point that I make to the hon. Member for Wentworth is about derelict land. Again he lambasted me on this matter. The hon. Gentleman will know that we have gone out to consultation on a scheme which will deal with section 143 registers. That consultation period has not yet ended; it will end at the end of this month. I am quite happy for the hon. Gentleman to write to me expressing his concerns about how that might impact—

Mr. Hardy: I am still waiting for a reply.

Mr. Maclean: We are near the end of a consultation exercise. I should very quickly end up in court if I prejudged the outcome of the consultation exercise. I shall bear carefully in mind the points that the hon. Gentleman and others have made about the impact that those registers might have in his constituency and in other parts of the country.

Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Maclean: I shall not give way, because I want to conclude my speech.
As we endeavour to build on the commitments that we signed up to at Rio, and as we shape our policies on the environment into the next century, the European Community has a role to play alongside and together with the individual member states. The fifth environmental action programme will be a vital part of that process. I have indicated tonight the approach that we are taking in discussing the programme in Brussels and the main themes that we would wish to see the Community pursue as the programme begins to be implemented. As those discussions move forward, we shall take account of the views expressed in this debate.
There is much work to be done in the Community in assessing how its policies match the aspirations of its member states—for example, the renewed commitment to the principle of subsidiarity and the requirement to integrate the environment in all policy aspects. As President of the Environment Council, we shall continue our efforts to ensure that the fifth action programme is adopted in terms which meet those concerns and enable the Community to continue to pursue effective environmental policies. I commend the motion to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House takes note of the European Community Document No. 6132/92, relating to the Fifth Environmental Action Programme; endorses the Government's welcome of the general shape of the Programme; supports the Programme's emphasis on the integration of environmental concerns into other areas of policy, subsidiarity and the need to set priorities and assess costs; and endorses the Government's intention to ensure that these elements and the outcome of the United Nations Conference on the Environment and Development are adequately reflected in the Resolution on the Programme which the Council is to adopt.

PETITIONS

Pornography

Dr. Robert Spink: I present a petition from more than 350,000 people. We see laid in front of us evidence of the massive public concern about the growth of pornography. The terms of the petition are that
urgent Government action is required to outlaw pornography. Because obscene and pornographic material, produced in Britain and abroad, is freely available on a scale as never before. The present Obscene Publications Act 1959 can control only the most extreme material. Because sex crime escalates children are increasingly at risk of being sexually abused and even murdered.
We the undersigned believe that the circulation of obscene and pornographic material is harmful to all members of society, especially to women and children.
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House call upon Her Majesty's Government to strengthen British Law against pornography and press for similar reform in the European Community without delay.
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray. I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Link Road, Kirklees

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I have the honour this evening to present a petition on behalf of my constituents in Batley and Spen. My constituents oppose the proposal to construct a link road between the M1 and M62 motorways in Kirklees in West Yorkshire. The proposed road would cut through Hartshead, Roberttown and Norristhorpe in my constituency. It would take away green fields and houses and cut a village and a community in half. It would be of no benefit whatever to my constituents if the proposal went ahead.
The petition has 3,000 signatures on it. It says:
Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your Honourable House will note our strong objections to these proposals and respect the wishes of the petitioners and prevent construction of any link road through Kirklees. And your petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc. I beg leave to present the petition.

To lie upon the Table.

Search and Rescue (Kent Coast)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Greg Knight.]

Mr. Roger Gale: I am grateful for the chance to raise during this short debate a matter which causes considerable anxiety to me and to my constituents —the provision of civilian search and rescue services covering the North Foreland and Dover strait.
I should make it plain that the airfield at Manston, known jointly as RAF Manston and Kent international airport, to which I shall refer, lies mainly in the constituency of my hon. Friend and parliamentary neighbour the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). My hon. Friend the Minister will understand that my hon. Friend's position as a Minister of State bars him by parliamentary convention from raising the issue on the Adjournment. But he is in his place on the Bench tonight and I hope that I shall speak for us both and for his constituents too.
The anxieties that I shall voice are echoed by my hon. Friends the Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw), for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)—who represents the coastal town of Whitstable with its fishing fleet—and for Faversham (Mr. Moate)—who has the major port of Sheerness in his care. I am also aware of the anxieties expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), who is with us tonight.
The Dover strait, the North Foreland and the Goodwin sands, together with the north Kent approaches to the Medway and the Thames estuary, constitute the busiest and one of the most hazardous sea lanes in the world. A mariner friend of mine has described the almost continuous cross-channel, small craft traffic as
like children running backwards and forwards across a motorway.
That mix of pleasure traffic, ferry traffic—about 200 crossings a day—and commercial shipping travelling to and from the great seaports of northern Europe is a series of accidents waiting to happen.
Added to the cocktail of potential disaster are the many holidaymakers who, throughout the season, find themselves in trouble on sailboards, airbeds, rubber dinghies and the like. Much of the rescue has been met, and will continue to be met, by the extraordinarily courageous volunteer work of the crews of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution and the now modern lifeboats which it mans for both inshore and deep-sea purposes.
There is another need which can be met only by the search and rescue helicopter service. For example, the Royal Air Force search and rescue team from Manston airfield was first on the scene when the Herald of Free Enterprise capsized. Civilians are alive today who owe their lives to the speed of that response. The search and rescue service from Manston has flown Kent county's firefighters to ships burning in the channel to remove casualties and fly them direct to Thanet district hospital and to put in fire-fighting teams in time to prevent small fires from turning into disasters.
Kent county fire service has about 100 officers who are trained specifically to fight fires at sea. In recent years, those men have attended many incidents on board ships in the waters off the North Foreland and the Dover strait.
According to the Kent fire brigade offshore operations team manual, those incidents began back in May 1965 when
The Pakistani Freighter Yousef Baksh was on fire and in danger of sinking. She was beached in Sandwich Bay. Reconnaissance was carried out by Kent Fire Brigade Officers using a helicopter from Manston who also provided transport for firefighters.
In the years that followed, major fire incidents attended with helicopter support include the Birkland, the Skyron, the Seafreight Freeway, the European Trader, the Herald of Free Enterprise, the Sally Star ferry and in June this year, the Bow Cedar. The fire service has also worked with the helicopter service to provide cliff rescues—an average of four a month during the summer—and now has equipment stores at Manston that include breathing apparatus, water and foam fire fighting equipment, rescue kit, and lighting and damage control supplies. There is also a fire service Manston liaison officer.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the fishermen off Hastings and Rye and the sailors in those waters are looking forward to enjoying the same sort of service, with a speedy response at the same amount of search time and the back up service that they are used to. I hope that my hon. Friend will make those points.

Mr. David Shaw: rose—

Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. We cannot have one intervention on another. The hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) must respond to the first intervention before allowing another.

Mr. Gale: I appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye. I could not agree more with every point that she made, and I shall elaborate on some of those in a moment.

Mr. Shaw: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. Many of our constituents obtain work on, and enjoy the use of ferries between Dover and Calais. Is it not vital that the Minister assures us that there will be no compromising of safety standards, and that the efficiency of the rescue service will be maintained?

Mr. Gale: Both my hon. Friends are entirely correct, and have reinforced the points that I shall make tonight.
It has been the combination of airborne and water-borne rescue services that has, in the past, proved so successful and is so much appreciated by our constituents. Let me briefly review the history of helicopter search and rescue in east Kent. In the early days—in 1961—the RAF flew a single Whirlwind helicopter from Manston. In 1969, the RAF service was replaced by the civilian firm, Bristow, acting under contract for the coastguard service. The civilian service operated by Bristow, using mainly ex-RAF personnel, won the company the coastguard rescue shield in 1972.
Shortly afterwards, the RAF reinstated Wessex helicopters to meet a perceived military aviation need at Manston and it may not surprise hon. Members to hear that there was a public outcry at the loss of the award-winning civilian service. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South—then Thanet, East—has been good enough to remind me that he instigated an

Adjournment debate, of which this one is almost the mirror image, to protest at the withdrawal of the Bristow contract.
During that debate, my hon. Friend drew attention to the fact that the then Under-Secretary of State for Defence for the Royal Air Force had said in a letter that there was
no direct service requirement to locate a helicopter at Manston".
Concluding his speech, my hon. Friend said prophetically:
there is above all the fear that these RAF helicopters will again be withdrawn … as they were in 1969 … Therefore, in the interests of all the yachtsmen, swimmers, and shipping traffic of the Channel I urge the Minister to reconsider his decision and to leave the excellent helicopter service in the situation where it now is".
Replying, the then Under-Secretary of State for Trade was unable to give an undertaking that there would not come a time when the RAF service would be withdrawn but said that in that unlikely event
it would provide us with sufficient notice to enable a satisfactory alternative service to be put into operation".—[Official Report. 23 July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 1523–29.]
The decision was taken, the RAF replaced Bristow and in 1988 the Wessex helicopters were replaced with Sea Kings.
Over that period of 30 years, the helicopter search and rescue service has responded to over 3,000 calls, and since the advent of serious rescue flying over the sea, the Dover strait and the North Foreland have not been without swift helicopter cover. On this basis, and remembering the comments of the Under-Secretary in 1974 concerning the need for sufficient notice to be given to provide adequate alternative cover, my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and I first made representations to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces who has, with the Secretary of State for Defence, listened courteously to our opinions and carried out a thorough review of the military need in the area. It has, sadly, become clear that the military need is greater to the north, serving the air stations of East Anglia, and to the west, where there is a concentration of military and, particularly, naval, flying, than in the Dover strait area.
In the past year, there have been three military callouts from RAF Manston. Two of those were airlifts—which means the evacuation of personnel on compassionate grounds—and one was recalled. None involved searches. In the previous four years, the pattern was not dissimilar. In 1991, military callouts involved one medical rescue, one medical evacuation, one airlift, two searches and two not required or false alarms. In 1990, there were fewer military callouts and only one search, one search in 1989, two searches in 1988 and no military searches in 1987.
Given the enhanced range of the Sea King helicopter, its night flying capacity and load-carrying ability, coupled with the sophisticated survival equipment carried by military personnel, it is clear that the decision to relocate the military search and rescue flights to cover faster the areas of greatest military need was inevitable.
My hon. Friends will join me in paying tribute to the courage and determination shown by the RAF search and rescue service. Many of the pilots and crews are our personal friends. We have grown accustomed to them—perhaps even taken them for granted—and we are relieved to know that the sight of the familiar yellow and green helicopters will not be lost to the north Kent coast, either on patrol from Wattisham or for the many ceremonial purposes at which their company has been enormously


appreciated and enjoyed. It is comforting to know that, from their new base, they will be only 40 minutes flying time away.
While 40 minutes is not great duration for a military flier equipped to survive in a winter sea for some hours, and while it is well within the one-hour response time laid down in civilian regulatory requirements it is, as we know, far too long for the child swept out to sea on a Li-Lo or the winter sailboarder who, albeit experienced and well-equipped, has suffered injury. Forty minutes is also time for a fire to take hold, to burn fiercely and to take lives. In an extra 20 minutes flying time, some of those rescued from the Herald of Free Enterprise would not today be alive. The extra delay may, I fear, cost lives.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South and I visited my noble Friend Lord Caithness, who has responsibility for the coastguard service, some weeks ago to raise this issue and to express our firm belief that the RAF service must be replaced by a civilian helicopter service designed and equipped to meet a civilian need.
Consider the figures again. In 1987, there were 117 civilian callouts from Manston involving 45 searches, 25 medical rescues, three medical evacuations and seven flights providing top cover for other rescue services. In 1988, the civilian callout number rose to 144 with 38 searches, 20 rescues and 24 medical evacuations. In 1989 there was another increase, with 157 civilian calls, 35 searches and 23 medical rescues. In 1990, there were 175 callouts for civilian purposes, involving 52 searches, 16 medical evacuations and 26 rescues. In 1991, there were 141 callouts involving 42 searches, 28 medical rescues and 13 ordinary rescues. So far this year, there have been 127 callouts, 40 searches and 18 medical rescues.
The figures speak for themselves. While the military need has fallen and can be well met from the new deployment of resources, the civilian need shows no sign of decreasing. I believe—I have to say it—that the combination of lifeboat and RAF search and rescue services from Wattisham will, on occasion, be insufficient to meet our needs. I cannot believe that the Minister is prepared to risk the life of one child or one sailor for the sake of providing, once again, civilian helicopter cover from Manston. The facilities are there and have recently been modernised. The precedent is there: civilian helicopters have flown from Manston for the coastguard service in the past and are currently flying from Lee-on-Solent. Above all, the need is there.
Earlier this evening, on TV South, my noble Friend Lord Caithness said that of some 900 incidents attended this year, 127 had involved the use of a helicopter. I am sure that, on reflection, Lord Caithness would not wish to suggest that in some way those 127 incidents did not matter—of course they mattered—or that for those 127 incidents the helicopters, and not other services, was needed to save lives.
I do not want to have to rise in this House to ask any Minister to answer a private notice question following an avoidable death off the North Foreland or in the channel arising from the failure to provide civilian search and rescue services from Manston. However, I know with an awesome certainty that, unless my hon. Friend the Minister and his noble Friend offer a positive response, the likelihood of my having to do so will be very great. I urge

my hon. Friend to take this case away and analyse it carefully. No decisions concerning civilian provision have yet been made. No political colours have been nailed to the mast and no reputations are on the line. My hon. Friend and my noble Friend will earn many people's gratitude if they provide at Manston the civilian services available from Lee-on-Solent. In all conscience, they can do no less.

The Minister for Transport in London (Mr. Steve Norris): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale) on having secured this debate on such an important subject. I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence Procurement in his place, as well as my hon. Friends the Members for Hastings and Rye (Mrs. Lait), for Dover (Mr. Shaw) and for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier). I appreciate the importance which they all attach to the debate, and I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and for Gravesham (Mr. Arnold) are also concerned.
The United Kingdom is very fortunate indeed to have a large and highly capable military helicopter fleet dedicated to search and rescue and which will, I am confident, continue to give good coverage around the whole of our coastline. Those helicopters are, however, provided by the Ministry of Defence to meet a military requirement and, although they are an invaluable asset, they are just one of a range of search and rescue resources available within the United Kingdom. My hon. Friends will doubtless know of the announcement made last week by my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for the Armed Forces. Copies of the open government document entitled "The Future Provision of Royal Air Force Search and Rescue Helicopters" are in the Library.
The Department of Transport is responsible for civil maritime and aeronautical search and rescue and, through Her Majesty's Coastguard, it meets the United Kingdom's obligations to provide an adequate level of SAR services for persons in distress within the United Kingdom's search and rescue region. We have at our disposal an armoury of SAR assets, which includes RAF, naval and coastguard helicopters, all-weather and fast inshore lifeboats of the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, and Coastguard response teams. SAR capability must be assessed taking all those available assets into account, not just helicopters. It is the job of the coastguard, as co-ordinator of search and rescue, to call on the best assets available to deal with any particular incident.
There is no international obligation to provide a civil helicopter rescue service. This country is the only one in Europe to have dedicated SAR helicopters positioned to meet national coverage criteria. These criteria were established in 1986 by the helicopter coverage group of the United Kingdom SAR committee, which recommended that helicopters should be deployed so that points 40 nautical miles from the coast can be reached within one hour by day, and those at 100 nautical miles from the coast can be reached within two hours by night or in bad weather. Those response times include an allowance for scrambling times of 15 minutes by day and 45 minutes at night. I am advised that, in practice, helicopters are regularly scrambled within three minutes, so there is a large allowance within that formal limit of one hour.
The recent review to which I referred and the announcement that flowed from it are a matter for the


Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend, as PPS to the Minister responsible, is in an interesting position. With his customary assiduity, he will be well aware of the contents. As he said, the number of RAF helicopters was determined by the military requirement. The effects on the provision of civil SAR were taken into account by the Ministry of Defence in the new dispositions of those helicopters to satisfy the civil requirement. The Department of Transport was consulted and my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister for Aviation and Shipping was satisfied that the rationalisation of helicopter deployment met the helicopter coverage group criteria for civil SAR —except for those very small additional areas marked on annex C of the open government document. lit also maintained adequate response times around the whole coast. Changes to the basing structure meant that on some parts of the coast the response times would be reduced. At other places they would be increased, but they will still be within the agreed criteria. I know that my hon. Friends are seeking that assurance.
It was decided that the criteria in south-east England could be met by a helicopter flight at Wattisham in Suffolk. That means that for certain areas around the Kent coast and in the English channel which are currently covered from RAF Manston there will be increased helicopter transit times. But we are satisfied that the Sea Kings at Wattisham will be available to respond to incidents in these areas within the response times recommended by the coverage group.
I can also appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye. The response time in her constituency by the Manston helicopter now would be about 30 minutes. In future, helicopters from either Lee on Solent or Wattisham will take 15 to 25 minutes longer, depending on the precise location of the casualty. But I stress that this is still within the one-hour daytime criterion. I have to acknowledge that there is a small area in mid-channel, south of the Dover strait, which is outside the one-hour daytime criterion. But because, as I have said, helicopters are almost always airborne well within the 15-minute standby time, in this area too the rescue helicopter would be on station well within the hour.
The North Foreland and Dover strait—of interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Dover—are extremely well served by lifeboats, with fast inshore boats stationed at Whitstable, Margate, Ramsgate and Walmer, and large all-weather boats at Margate, Ramsgate and Dover. Further to the west, in or adjacent to the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye, there are lifeboats at Dungeness, Rye, Hastings and Eastbourne. As most incidents occur within two to three miles of the coast—my hon. Friend referred to people who drift out to sea on small craft—they will continue to be effectively resolved, as always, using a mix of national SAR assets, including these lifeboats and the helicopters from Wattisham and Lee on Solent. In the Dover coastguard district there are also 10 auxiliary coastguard response teams which are trained and equipped to locate and rescue casualties on the shore or on cliffs. There are similar teams around the whole coastline.
It should be noted that, during 1991, the Manston aircraft was tasked by HM Coastguard on 127 occasions. My hon. Friend said that Lord Caithness used that very statistic. Only about 10 per cent. of those were actual rescues—13 in all. The balance included search operations, the lifting of injured people from ships, medical transfers

between hospitals and so on. So although helicopters are an important asset, they are not the only SAR resource available. The total number of incidents in the Dover region over the same period was 876, of which the vast majority—more than 700—were dealt with without recourse to helicopters.
In the rare event of an incident occurring in the middle of the Dover strait or near the median line, or of a major incident elsewhere in the Dover region, the most suitable assets will be used, whether national or requested from adjacent foreign search and rescue regions. This is in line with accepted SAR practice with other European authorities. The recent incident when a fire disabled the French ferry Quiberon served to demonstrate the effectiveness of cross-border liaison arrangements. Even though the vessel was in French waters, the Ministry of Defence brought a great number of aircraft to readiness. But occasions on which we would need to call upon the French authorities or the Belgians to provide a helicopter to deal with a casualty in our waters would be very rare. I am advised that none of the incidents dealt with by the Manston helicopter last year would have needed the Belgian helicopter had the Manston one not been available. On the basis of past records, it is not expected that the removal of the Manston helicopter will increase the load on any other resources, including Belgian or French resources, for example.
For the future, I am pleased to see the progress made by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution in developing its next generation of fast-afloat lifeboats and welcome its stated intention to give priority to the early allocation of these new fast boats in the areas affected by the change in helicopter deployment. The first of three of these boats for Kent should be on station within a few months of the departure of the Manston helicopter.
It has been suggested that an extra helicopter—effectively, a coastguard helicopter—should be put at Manston, like the one at Lee-on-Solent. Our judgment is that it would be difficult to justify that allocation with the limited search and rescue benefits that it would bring. We have considered but rejected alternative arrangements to enhance cover by diverting helicopters from existing bases and having them travel to and from Manston each day. The relocation of the coastguard helicopter from its present base at Solent to a point further east would denude the night cover from the west of the Solent, as the Royal Navy helicopter at Portland does not have full night or all weather capability. The present base is best to maintain coverage of the south coast and mid channel under the 1986 criteria, even after the removal of the Manston helicopter.
Although there will undoubtedly be a change in the make-up of search and rescue resources available to respond to incidents off the Kent coast and in the Dover strait, we have and will maintain a versatile and highly professional search and rescue capability both in those areas and around the entire coast of the United Kingdom. I well understand the concern that has been expressed extremely forcefully this evening. My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury and for Hastings and Rye have emphasised that concern. I could never predict what might happen on individual occasions or in individual incidents, but I know that my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Lord Caithness, when considering the


adequacy of the alternatives, was clear that, as far as was reasonably possible, the criteria that we are required to refer to would be adhered to.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend able to give us an assurance that he will keep the decision carefully monitored and under review, and therefore ensure that we can feel confident about the future security of the rescue service?

Mr. Norris: I shall ensure that the position is kept under close review. I shall draw the attention of my noble Friend the Minister of State to this debate tomorrow morning. I know that he will be extremely interested in the outcome of it.
I make two final points. The first one is obvious, but it is worth making. It is that the first line of defence against disaster at sea must always be mariners themselves. The sensible user of the sea will always attend first and foremost to his own safety. He will know his own limitations and those of his craft. He will ensure that the

vessel is seaworthy and well equipped and that its engine is in good order. He will listen to the weather forecast and have appropriate safety equipment on board, including life jackets and life rafts. Every time a helicopter or a lifeboat is launched on a rescue mission, the crews are risking their lives. The number of rescue missions could certainly be reduced if seagoers acted sensibly and prudently.
Finally, I know that the House would not wish to conclude a debate on search and rescue without paying tribute to the tireless efforts of the RNLI to provide for these islands a first-class lifeboat service, using both fast inshore and rugged all-weather boats offshore. As we all know, the institution is financed entirely by donations. We know also that the lifeboat crews are all volunteers. The organisation's sheer professionalism and its crews' high standards of seamanship are legendary, and I salute them. With these lifeboats, with the various helicopters and with the coastguard service, we have a potent and highly successful rescue service.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eleven minutes to Twelve o'clock.